• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.22
• /
• pp.201-226
• /
• 2004

P & I Clubs are mutual and non-profit making insurers which offer shipowners cover for the contractual and third-party liabilities. Whereas most shipowners obtain P & I insurance to cover for their legal liabilities, they also obtain hull insurance to cover against damages to the hull of their vessels from commercial hull insurers. P & I insurance was distinguished from hull insurance in respect that it offered non-limited cover to shipowner member, but there was a serious debate between P & I Clubs in respect of the non-limited cover. A compromise by International Group of P & I Clubs eventually emerged under which, with effect from 20 February 1997, a financial cap was placed on the obligation of each shipowner to pay catasrophe calls to his club(20% of each ship's property limitation fund under 1976 Limitation Convention). Nevertheless many shipowners felt that this new cap on their potential catastrophe call had been set still too high, while others resisted any reduction in the figure established by the compromise. In the Meantime, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in June 1997, in which it indicated its objections with a compulsory single limit common th all the Group clubs as high as the 1997 compromise. Eventually the board of all the Group clubs decided that the figure of 20% of the Limitation Convention per ship property funds should be dropped down to 2.5% from 20 February 1999.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.191-215
• /
• 1994

The concept of 'wilful misconduct" was initally used in article 25 of the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The concept was defined in the Hague Protocol, 1955, as having the following two differing concepts: i) "with the intent to cause damage" and ii) "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." The concepts contained in the Hague Protocol were used in various international Conventions on carriage by sea, such as Article 2(e) and Article 3(4) of the Protocol adopted at Brussels on Feb. 23, 1968 to amend the International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading, signed at Brussels, Aug. 25, 1929(Hague-Visby Rules), Article 13 of the Athens Convention relating to the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea, Dec. 13. 1974, Article 4 of the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims, 1976, Article 8(1) of the U.N. Convention on the Carriage of Goods by Sea, 1978(Hamburg Rules) and Article 21 (1) of the U.N. Convention on International Multimodal Transport of Goods, Geneva, 1980. The same concepts were also adopted in Article 746, 789-2(1), 789-3(2) of the Korean Maritime Commercial Law, revised in 1991. As of yet, the legal system of Korean Private Law recognizes only the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit", as is the case with German Private Law. The problem is that the concepts in the Convention do not coincide precisely with the concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit". The author has conducted a comparative analysis of the treatment of the concepts of wilful misconduct and its varied interpretations, that is, "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" in the Anglo-American law and in the continental European law in the following manner: 1. Background in which the concept of wilful misconduct was introduced in the Warsaw Convention. 2. The concept of "dol" in French private law. 3. The concepts of "Vorsatz" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in Korean private law. 4. Analysis of the concept of wilful misconduct in Anglo-American case law. 5. Analysis of the cases interpreting the concepts of "with intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result" in various jurisdictions. 6. The need to incorporate the concepts of "with the intent to cause damage" and "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result." 7. Faute inexcusable in French private law. Based upon the comparative analysis, the author points out the difference between the concepts of "wilful misconduct" or "with the intent to cause damage" and "Vorsatz", and between the concepts of "recklessly and with the knowledge that damage would probably result" and "grobe Nachlassigkeit" in the Convention and that of the Korean Private Law system. Additionally, the author emphasizes the importance of the unification in the interpretation of the provisions of the Conventions world wide.