• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.411-437
• /
• 2000

It is unsafe to attempt a complete definition of the expression 'perils of the seas', because in practice the question 'what is a peril of the seas' is inextricably woven up with the further question, 'was the loss proximately caused by the sea peril ?' Such casualties as stranding, collision and heavy weather appear with monotonous regularity in the daily reports, and are the obvious examples. However, what can be included in the term 'perils of the seas' seems to be inexhaustible, although most circumstances appear to have been covered by the Courts. Two cases heard in 1887 were instrumental in defining perils of the seas. In The Xantho Lord Herschell made the following remarks: "The term ... does not cover every accidents or casualty which may happen to the subject matter of insurance on the sea. It must be a peril 'of' the sea. Not every loss or damage of which the sea is the immediate cause is covered by these words. They do not protect, for example, against that natural and inevitable action of the winds and waves which results in what may be described as wear and tear. There must be some casualty, something which could not be foreseen as one of the necessary incidents of the adventure. The purpose of the policy is to secure an indemnity against accidents which may happen, not against events which must happen. ... If a vessel strikes upon a sunken rock in fair weather and sinks, this is a loss by perils of the sea."

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.31 no.8
• /
• pp.653-662
• /
• 2007

Fishing vessel insurance of National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives indemnifies the assured against marine losses by reason of maritime perils, that is to say, perils of the seas, sinking, stranding, collision, extraordinary action of winds waves and fire, damage, salvage. Therefore this insurance is a rational protective measures for preserving fishermen's property by the exposure to maritime perils. But there may be some problems on the perils covered by fishing vessel insurance clauses bemuse these clauses are not clearly and accurately prescribed in part. Especially where the assured may claim payment from fortuitous accidents or casualties of the seas musing the loss, they used to raise a question in argument about the ambiguity of these clauses. So these problems may need to be reformed for the purpose of preventing or decreasing those of the assured, the fishermen. After drawing out some problems on the perils covered by fishing vessel insurance clauses, this thesis will suggest the improving schemes on the perils covered by these clauses.