This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Brown A (1987) Hazard Unlimited: The Story of Lloyds of London, LLP, pp. 16–17.
Brown A (1987) Hazard Unlimited: The Story of Lloyds of London, LLP, pp. 16–17
Members of the modern P&I Clubs are shipowners and other sea operators, such as charterers. Control of the association is vested in a committee or board of directors elected by the members from among themselves, whereas management is delegated to the club managers, either club employees or independent management companies. (Bennett H (1996) The Law of Marine Insurance, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 8–9).
Bennett H (1996) The Law of Marine Insurance, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp. 8–9.
Merkin R (2000) Marine Insurance Legislation, LLP, p.xxxvii.
Merkin R (2000) Marine Insurance Legislation, LLP, p.xxxvii.
Dover V (1957) A Handbook to Marine Insurance, pp. 30–35.
A number of different forms of insurance are required to provide full cover for a marine adventure and these are all available under Institute Clause wording, the three main heads of cover being cargo, hull and freight, (Merkin R (2000) Marine Insurance Legislation, LLP, p.xxxvii).
Marine Insurance owes its appearance to the maritime perils encountered in the process of conduct of maritime affairs. Marine insurance law contains a combination of principles of maritime and insurance law. As a concept it is said to have appeared at the end of the Middle Age, when the concept of perils was initially established. It is the most ancient form of insurance and is considered as part of maritime law (Tsatsos D, Dountas M, Zepos K (1954) Insurance Law Lectures, Sakkoulas Publications, Athens).
Wilhelmsen TL (1998) The Marine Insurance System in Civil Law Countries — Status and Problems, MarIus 242,1, Utgitt Av Sjorettsfondet, Oslo.
Wilhelmsen TL (2001) Issues of Marine Insurance: Duty of Disclosure, Duty of Good Faith, Alteration of Risk and Warranties, MarIus 281, Simply YearBook 2001,45, Utgitt Av Sjorettsfondet, Oslo.
Spaidiotis K (1999) Marine Insurance Law in Greece, Maritime Advocate, Is. 7.
Rokas I (1995) Introduction to the Law of Private Insurance, 4th edn, Oikonomikon Publications, Athens.
Derrington S (1998) The Law Relating to non-Disclosure, Misrepresentation and Breach of Warranty in Contracts of Marine Insurance: A Case for Reform, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
Wilhelmsen TL (1998) The Marine Insurance System in Civil Law Countries-Status and Problems, Marlus No 242, 15.
Bull HJ (1999) The Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan of 1996, In Huybrecht M (ed) Marine Insurance at the Turn of the Millennium, Vol. I, Intersentia, Antwerp.
Derrington S (1998) The Law Relating to non-Disclosure, Misrepresentation and Breach of Warranty in Contracts of Marine Insurance: A Case for Reform, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
Wilhelmsen TL (1998) The Marine Insurance System in Civil Law Countries-Status and Problems, MarIus No 242, 15.
Bull H.J (1999) The Norwegian Marine Insurance Plan of 1996, In Huybrecht M (ed) Marine Insurance at the Turn of the Millennium, Vol. I, Intersentia, Antwerp.
Derrington S (1998) The Law Relating to non-Disclosure, Misrepresentation and Breach of Warranty in Contracts of Marine Insurance: A Case for Reform, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
Derrington S (1998) The Law Relating to non-Disclosure, Misrepresentation and Breach of Warranty in Contracts of Marine Insurance: A Case for Reform, PhD Thesis, University of Queensland, Australia.
Schoenbaum TJ (2001) Admiralty and Maritime Law, 3rd edn, Hornbook Series, West Group, St.Paul, Minn USA.
Schoenbaum TJ (1999) Key Divergences Between English and American Law of Marine Insurance: A Comparative Study, Cornell Maritime Press, pp.12–17.
It was always though that the general maritime law governing marine insurance was largely the same as English law. In Queens Insurance Co of America v Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co, [263 US 487,493,44 SCt 175,176,68 LEd 402 (1924)] Justice Holmes declared that: “... [t]here are special reasons for keeping in harmony with the marine insurance laws of England, the great field of this business” (Sturley MF (2002)A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch. 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol. 2, LLP).
Insurance Co v Dunham, 78 US (11 Wall) 1,20 LEd 90 (1870); DeLovio v Boit, 7 FCas, 418 (CCD Mass 1815), (No 3776).
Due to the “special reasons for keeping in harmony with the marine insurance laws of England, the great field of this business” as stated in Queens Ins Co of America v Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins Co, 263 US 487, 493, 44 SCt 175, 176, 68 LEd 402 (1924).
Wilburn Boat Co v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt, 368, 99 LEd, 337(1955).
The District court ruled that federal maritime law governed and that due to the “literal compliance” rule, the Wilburns were not entitled to any recovery. The US Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) affirmed (Sturley MF (2002) A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol. 2, LLP).
On 28 February, 1955, the Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit’s decision. Justice Black, having noted that there was no relevant federal legislation, asked whether there was a judicially established federal admiralty rule governing these warranties and secondly, in the case that there was not, whether they should fashion one. He answered the first question to the negative and did not offer any guidance as to what is required for a rule to become “judicially established”, and regarding the second question, the court declined to fashion a “new” admiralty rule firstly because the regulation of insurance had historically been a state matter and the Congress had long accepted and acted upon this division of responsibility, and secondly even if the court decided to fashion a new rule, the latter would prove a difficult task for which the courts might not be the best equipped to perform. Justice Frankfurter accepted the court’s judgement but distinguished his position as to the majority’s reasoning, and argued for a middle ground, where cases requiring a uniform rule would be governed by general maritime law, whilst those of essentially local interest would be governed by state law. Justice Reed, together with Justice Burton, dissented and argued that the rule, until Congress or court modified it, should apply to all maritime cases so as to preserve uniformity (Sturley MF (2002) A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol. 2, LLP).
Wilburn Boat Co v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt 368, 99 LEd, 337(1955).
The Supreme Court began its vertical choice-of-law analysis by asking whether there was an established federal admiralty rule governing the issue. The court concluded that there was no such rule in the case before it, offering no more guidance on what would be required for a rule to become sufficiently established. The court expected more than two court of appeal rulings so as to accept the literal compliance rule as part of the general admiralty law. However, despite the broad criticism of the Wilburn Boat, the judiciary has not uniformly limited or distinguished it. In Youell v Exxon Corp, [48 F3d 105 1995 AMC 369] the court — although essentially willing to disregard Wilburn Boat-Aid not declare that the case encompassed a more general impetus justifying the non application of state law. Some courts choose to apply state law simply because the case before them involves marine insurance (Sturley MF (2002) A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol 2, LLP).
When a court has chosen a particular state’s law, there is rarely a relevant judicial decision or statute in the maritime context. Many states exclude marine insurance from significant portions of their insurance legislation. Thus, the court is left to resolve a marine insurance dispute with reasoning derived from other areas of insurance such as automobile or homeowner insurance. In identifying which state’s law will be applied, federal choice-of-law considerations will govern. In Advani Enterprises Inc v Underwriters at Lloyd’s [927 F2d. 882 1991 AMC 2211 (5th Circ)] the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgement to a cargo underwriter because of the insured’s breach of an express warranty that voided the policy under New York State Law. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeal for the 2nd Circuit found there was no established federal law, under the Wilburn Boat, and balancing the contacts under federal choice-of-law rules held that English law applied. The result is that under Wilburn Boat, where federal law is not deemed well established, state or foreign law may be applied but federal law may not. (Sturley MF (2002) A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol 2, LLP).
In Kossick v United Fruit Co, [365 US 731,81 SCt886,6 LEd 2d 56 (1961)] the Supreme Court explained Wilburn Boat, justifying the application of state law due to a lack of any provision of maritime law governing the matter there presented and clarified that Wilburn Boat did not require state law to govern in every admiralty case. Wilburn Boat can also be explained on the basis that it would have been inappropriate for the Court to have “fashioned” a federal law rule, for insurance on a boat plying the waters of a small inland lake that just happened to be in admiralty jurisdiction.
Big Lift Shipping Co v Bellefonte In. Co, 594 FSupp 701, 1985 AMC 1201 (SDNY 1984); Kamani v Port of Houston Authority, 702 F2d 612,614 (5th Cir.1983); Elevating Boats Inc v Gulf Coast Marine Inc, 766 F2d 195 (5th Cir 1985).
Wilburn Boat Co v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt 368, 99 LEd, 337(1955).
Wilburn Boat Co v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt 368, 99 LEd, 337(1955).
Sturley MF (2002) A US Perspective on Marine Insurance Law, Ch. 12 In Thomas R (ed) The Modern Law of Marine Insurance, Vol. 2, LLP.
[1983] 1 SCR 283.
[1983] 1 SCR 283.
[1998] 3 S.C.R. 437.
Argyriadis A (1986) Elements of Insurance Law, 4th edn, Sakkoulas Publications, Thessaloniki, Greece.
The 1906 Act has not removed the need to refer to pre-Act authorities, and that even where the wording of the Act is clear the courts have accepted the need to construe its terms flexibly in order to give the Act a sensible modern application. (Croly C, Merkin R (2001) Doubts About Insurance Codes, J.B.L. 2001, Nov, 587–604).
Croly C, Merkin R. (2001) Doubts About Insurance Codes, J.B.L. 2001, Nov: 587–604
Wilburn Boat Co v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt 368, 99 LEd, 337(1955).
However, in the USA there is no specific statute to regulate marine insurance other than federal maritime law. Moreover, due to the Wilburn Boat v Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co, 348 US 310, 75 SCt 368, 99 LEd, 337 (1955) ruling, courts will nowadays mostly apply state law. Nevertheless, even in this case the situation is not always that clear-cut, as not all states have a statute to regulate marine insurance law and, subsequently, they will have to resort to either home or automobile insurance law to resolve the issue arisen.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). The history and legislative framework of marine insurance. In: The Principle of Indemnity in Marine Insurance Contracts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49074-6_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49074-6_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-49073-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49074-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)