1 / 10

Paul Davison Partner Beachcroft LLP

GLOBAL PROCESS SYSTEMS v SYRIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA (2011) The “Cendor Mopu” The Scope of “Inherent Vice” Exclusion. Paul Davison Partner Beachcroft LLP. Overview. The Cendor Mopu – the Facts Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning Wider Implications of the Decision. The Cendor Mopu – The Facts.

elpida
Download Presentation

Paul Davison Partner Beachcroft LLP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. GLOBAL PROCESS SYSTEMSvSYRIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA (2011)The “Cendor Mopu”The Scope of “Inherent Vice” Exclusion Paul Davison Partner Beachcroft LLP

  2. Overview • The Cendor Mopu – the Facts • Supreme Court Decision and Reasoning • Wider Implications of the Decision

  3. The Cendor Mopu – The Facts • Oil Rig – laid up in Texas • 2005 – purchased by Insured • To be used for offshore production off coast of Malaysia • Transferred by barge - 3 legs 300ft in the air • Off Cape of Good Hope – • 1 leg broke off • Next day followed by other 2 legs

  4. The Cendor Mopu – The Insurance • Insured purchased a marine cargo policy for the journey • Indemnity : “all risks” – including perils of the seas • Excludes:- “Loss, damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured” – clause 4.4

  5. Supreme Court Decision – The Issue • What caused the loss • Inherent vice (excluded); or • Perils of the sea (insured)

  6. Supreme Court - Decision • Proximate cause of loss - a large wave:- • Caught leg at right moment – causing collapse • Led to unexpected stress on and collapse of the other 2 legs • Cause of loss– perils of the seas - not “Inherent Vice” • Loss covered by the policy

  7. Supreme Court - Reasoning What is “Inherent Vice”? • Does note encompass intervention of any fortuitous external accident • Limited to “natural behaviour of goods …. in the circumstances in which they are expected to be carried” per Donaldson LJ

  8. Supreme Court - Reasoning What are “Perils of the Seas”? • Must be fortuitous accident • Not ordinary action of wind and waves Held • Weather encountered was contemplated for the voyage • Sufficient if wind and waves had an extraordinary effect rather than being extraordinary in themselves

  9. Wider Implications • Inherent vice exclusion - Narrowed • Does not apply where there is any fortuitous external event - even if the event is to be expected • Applies only where the loss is caused entirely by the internal state of the insured subject matter • Proximate cause of loss - key issue • External straw that broke the camels back= not inherent vice

  10. Wider Implications • Insurers can only deny such claims if loss caused by: • Ordinary wear and tear – i.e. cause was inevitable; or • Inherent vice – if due entirely to characteristics of the goods • Key – absence of any fortuitous external accident or casualty

More Related