• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제26권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.77-108
• /
• 2007

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs md, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제26권4호
• /
• pp.399-406
• /
• 2002

해상선박보험의 역사를 통하여 보면 많은 경우에, 피보험자의 상당주의의무의 결여로 인하여 보험자가 보상을 거부한 경우가 많은 것을 볼 수 있다. 또한 과거 우리나라의 해상사고를 보아도 대부분의 사고가 인적요인에 의해 발생하였음을 알 수 있다. 따라서 본 논문은 이러한 해상손해에 중점을 두고 보험약간과 다른 제반 규칙들을 고찰함으로써 상당주의의무의 필요성에 대해서 강조하며, 나아가 사고사례를 분석하여 상당주의의무의 이행과 그 효과에 대해서 고착하고자 한다.

• 한국마린엔지니어링학회:학술대회논문집
• /
• 한국마린엔지니어링학회 2006년도 전기학술대회논문집
• /
• pp.133-134
• /
• 2006

Recently, despite of the effects of international Coordination and cooperation to prevent piracy, piracy is on an increasing trend every year. Such circumstances may have a bad effect on the sound development of world economy by means of trade in sea as well as treat to the safety of crews and safe operation of ships. Finally, Modern maritime piracy has become one of the major threats to safety at sea. We having Cargo-owners or Ship-owners attacked by piracy, it causes enormous economic losses. Therefore, Ship-owners and Cargo-owners insure Cargo Insurance, Hull Insurance and P&I Insurance to indemnity of losses which is caused by piracy. The Purpose of this paper was to explain the losses caused by piracy and studying the limits of the possibility of indemnity in the Cargo Insurance, Hull Insurance and P&I Insurance.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권6호
• /
• pp.157-179
• /
• 2020

This study presented the results of meta-analysis through topic modeling among the papers published in the Journal of the International Trade Association for the purpose of presenting academic research trends in the field of trade insurance and future research directions. Among the total 2,010 papers included in the Journal of the Korea International Trade Association, the analyzed paper covers the subject of trade-related insurance. According to detailed topics, 33 marine insurance (42.31%), 16 export insurance (20.51%), 11 hull insurance (14.10%), and 18 others (23.08%), and 4 other products liability insurance. According to the empirical analysis results, Topic 1 was classified as marine insurance, airworthiness, notice obligation, and collateral, and Topic 2 was derived as a representative topic for loading insurance, emergency risk, and immunity as export insurance. And Topic 3 was classified as vessel, sinking and container in relation to ship insurance, and Topic 4 was analyzed as an important topic such as manufacture and British marine insurance. Through the analysis results, we selected the representative topic used for the trade insurance topic and looked at the status of major research. Trade insurance is an area that requires the development of more theoretical and practical research subjects as an optimal risk management means in international trade transactions. To this end, first, support from the Korea International Trade Association is needed to establish a continuous research subject sharing system for the development of research subjects in the field of trade insurance. Second, academic journal operation management must be continuously managed in which academic research papers can be submitted and published.

• 수산해양교육연구
• /
• 제6권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine 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 established 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 developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• 정보학연구
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• 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.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제15권3호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제54권
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2012

International Hull Clauses(IHC(2003)) which have replaced the old system, Institute Time Clauses, Hull(ITCH), used more than 100 years in the shipping industry that did not fit the reality of the market and customs was announced in 01/11/2003 and was intended to supplement the existing issues to reflect the terms that had been used. IHC(2003) was composed of systematical and logical phrases to minimize the conflict which happened between the insured and the insurer after the incident. But IHC(2003) is being ignored by both the insured and the insurer in the shipping industry due to the differences in both positions. In addition, the studies about IHC(2003) in local academics are very low and many companies in the shipping industry are using both systems, IHC(2003) and ITCH so the usage of IHC(2003) is not so activated. Thus, this study will examines the main features and the compositions of IHC(2003) and compare IHC(2003) with ITCH(1983) in some provisions in both systems and then derive some similarities from the both systems and finally would suggest the necessity and validity of active use of IHC(2003).