• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• 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 Port Economic Association
• /
• v.20 no.2
• /
• pp.73-87
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this paper is to setup reasonable criterion for underwriters to reimburse the expenses of suing and labouring incurred by assured, using game theory. As for the upper limit for the reimbursement, MIA and ICC do not mention at all but stipulate that proper and reasonable expenses shall be reimbursed, while ITC-Hulls set the amount insured as the upper limit to compensate the sum of expenses and damage loss. And as for failed measures of averting and minimizing loss, MIA and ICC do not mention either, while ITC-Hulls stipulates underwriters shall compensate the expenses and damage loss within the amount insured. The main results of this paper are as follows: First, it is for the benefit of underwriters to reimburse the expenses incurred to take such reasonable measures to avert or minimizing a loss which would be recoverable under the insurance. Second, the expenses of single measure should not be above the amount insured. Third, even if the measures failed, the expense should be reimbursed if it is less than the expected value of the subject-matter insured that could be recovered by the measures. Last, if the measures are taken several times individually, even if the sum of expenses might be above the amount insured, it should be reimbursed.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.335-359
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to interpret the articles revision of the 2009 ISC(Cargo) compared to the 1982. The result of this study is summarized as followings: 1) the 'clause' attached to article in 1982 ISC(Cargo) was deleted in the revision of 2009 ISC(Cargo). 2) 2009 ISC(Cargo) is characterized as the marine insurance firms' acceptance of new environment change, limitation in causation and subject-matter insured, expansion of insurance period, and limited revision. 3) The assured has a large range of choice in 2009 ISC(Cargo) even though both 1982 ISqCargo) and 2009 ISC(Cargo) would be existed further. 4) There are few studies which have a focus on the impact of the relationship between responsibility of the insurer and opportunity of the assured on rate of premium. In the future, the studies on clauses, relationship among clauses, relationship between clause and rate of premium are needed in the 2009 ICC(Air), 2009 IWC(Air Cargo), 2009 ISC(Air Cargo), 2009 IWC(sending by post) et al.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.137-169
• /
• 2013

This article intends to analyse some features in Exclusion Clauses of the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are following. First, the insufficiency of packing or preparation exclusion under the revised Clause 4.3 is now more limited than before and the Clause suggest the test of sufficiency or suitability "to withstand the ordinary incidents of the insured transit". Secondly, the word "proximately" was deleted under the revised Clause 4.5 for the insurer to be identified more easily as a cause, but it remains to be seen whether that re-drafting will be successful. Thirdly, The exclusion under the revised Clause 4.6 does not apply unless the insurer can prove that, at the time the subject-matter insured is loaded on board the vessel, the assured was aware, or in the ordinary course of business should have been aware, that the relevant insolvency or financial default could prvent the normal prosecution of the voyage, and to a person who purchase the goods from the assured in good faith under a binding contract. Fourthly, the exclusion in respect of unseaworthiness of vessel under Clause 5.1.1 applies only where the assured is privy to the unseaworthiness, whereas the exclusion in respect of unfitness of container or conveyance under Clause 5.1.2 includes the privity of the employee. Finally, Clause 7 establishes the definition of terrorism, and adds ideological and religious motive to political motive.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.113-135
• /
• 2013

Piracy has been an ongoing and serious problem in international shipping industry. Somalia is often in the news these days. Somalia has been in a state of unrest for more than two centuries. In recent times, the situation has remained unstable. The persistent unrest is the major driver behind the piracy epidemic in Somalia waters. By the MIA 1906, s.78(1), the expenses in order to be recoverable must have been "properly incurred". The underwriter is also liable in certain circumstances for expenses incurred by the assured in an attempt to avert or diminish loss covered by the policy, under provisions. This class of expenditure is commonly referred to as sue and labour expenses, or suing and labouring expenses; less commonly, as particular charges. The standard marine policy(the S.G.Form) contained what was invariably called the sue and labour clause, which has been replaced in the current Institute Clauses by the "Duty of Assured(Sue and Labour)" Clause in the Hull Clauses, and the "Duty of Assured" Clause, headed "Minimizing losses", in the Cargo Clauses. Sue and labour charges are not confined to expenditure on the part of the assured and his agents, but can include quantified loss consequent upon a sacrifice properly and reasonably made to avert or minimize an insured loss.

• 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 Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2005

The S.G. Policy form contains the words "the good ship or vessel called the.....". The words "good ship" mean that the ship is deemed to be seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage and this was very necessary in the day when a separate policy was issued for each voyage. In fact the warranty do seaworthiness still applies to all voyage policies. Nevertheless, the law does not apply an absolute warranty of seaworthiness to a time policy, so a ship is not required to be seaworthy at the time the hull policy is effected. The implied warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to good, for the underwriter is not responsible for their condition, apart fro the action of the perils insured against. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is limited to the vessel herself, and does not extend to a lighter or other craft used to convey the goods to the ship. The underwriters waive any breach of the implied warranties of the seaworthiness of the ship and fitness of the ship to carry the subject-matter insured to destination, unless the assured or their servants are privy to such unseaworthiness of unfitness.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2011

The retroactive insurance is the system that the Assured, the principal of insurance contract shall be entitled to recover for insured(beneficiary in insurance of persons) loss during the period of insurance covered by this insurance, not withstanding that the loss had occurred before the contract of insurance concluded. The retroactive insurance is applicable to both property insurance and insurance of persons. The commercial law of Korea stipulates its rules in the insurance volume. The ultimate and definite articles of cargo insurance about the retroactive insurance are stipulated in MIA and ICC. In general insurance of persons stipulates relevant articles in the clause. Even though articles pertinent to the retroactive insurance are written explicitly in relevant law, it is difficult to settle the claim just by using specified rules of related regulations. Therefore, a claim is settled down based on the actual facts. After studying some of the actual dispute facts connected with the retroactive insurance having properties mentioned, this paper suggests controversial points and alternative ideas.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.53-72
• /
• 1991

The marine cargo insurance compensates the cargo losses that happened during navigation . at the early days of the marine insurance, the insurer inclusively covered all risks that happended during navigation. But since the feature of the risks have been changed due to the development of the shipbuilding technique and commerce, the insurer could not bear all of the perils inclusively. So, the insurer have taken the limitation of the risks insured and the losses paid by exclusion clauses. Therefore, the purpose ;of this paper is to compare the exclusion clauses in the new Institute Cargo Clause (hereafter I.C.C.) with those in the former I.C.C.(all risks, F.P.A) and to make clear the scope of insurer's liability through the theoretical interpretation, clarification of various excluded risks in laws and clauses relating to marine cargo insurance. From what 1 mentioned above, 1 conclude that through continued study on the exclusion sin the new I.C.C., we should organize and establish a system which will satisfy both underwriters and the assured in making the application and the effectiveness equal for each party.