• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.51-79
• /
• 1994

Section 55 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against but is not liable for any loss not proximately caused by a peril insured against. It is, therefore, essential to determine whether it is to be recoverable under the Marine Insurance Policy attaching the Institute Cargo or Hull Clauses. But a number of important losses are excluded from the policy by subsection 2 of the same section, unless the policy otherwise provides, although these losses are proximate causes of them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of proximate cause and excluded losses in the Act. The method of this study is a literature survey. In summary, (1) if the loss is considered to have been proximately caused by a certain peril, and the peril is insured against, the claim is recoverable, (2) if there are different causes resulting in separate losses, the claims recoverable will be those due to insured perils, (3) when the effective cause of the loss is established, remote causes can be ignored, (4) when causes of loss are combined, the claim is recovera-ble if the cause which is proximate in efficiency is an insured peril, (5) if there are two causes, equal in efficiency, the loss is recoverable if one of the causes is an insured peril, but always providing the other cause is merely an uninsured peril rather than a specific exclusion, (6) although certain losses are exclu-ded by section 55 (2) of the Act, with the exception of wilful misconduct of the insured, it is permitted for provision to be made in the policy to widen the terms to include such losses.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.