1 / 17

Changes to Insurance Contract Law – The Bluffers’ Guide

Changes to Insurance Contract Law – The Bluffers’ Guide. Section 10 - Breach of Warranty. ….

petersonandrew
Download Presentation

Changes to Insurance Contract Law – The Bluffers’ Guide

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. Changes to Insurance Contract Law – The Bluffers’ Guide

  2. Section 10 - Breach of Warranty …. (2) An insurer has no liability under a contract of insurance in respect of any loss occurring, or attributable to something happening, after a warranty (express or implied) in the contract has been breached but before the breach has been remedied. …. • Subsection (2) does not affect the liability of the insurer in respect of losses occurring, or attributable to something happening – (a) before the Breach of Warranty, or (b) if the breach can be remedied, after it has been remedied. • For the purposes of this section, a Breach of Warranty is to be taken as remedied – (a) in a case falling within subsection (6), if the risk to which the warranty relates later becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties, (b) in any other case, if the insured ceases to be in breach of the warranty. (6) A case falls within this subsection if – (a) the warranty in question requires that by an ascertainable time something is to be done (or not done), or a condition is to be fulfilled, or something is (or is not) to be the case, and (b) that requirement is not complied with.

  3. Section 11 - Terms not relevant to the actual loss (1) This section applies to a term (express or implied) of a contract of insurance, other than a term defining the risk as a whole, if compliance with it would tend to reduce the risk of one or more of the following – (a) loss of a particular kind, (b) loss of a particular location, (c) loss at a particular time • If a loss occurs, and the term has not been complied with, the insurer may not rely on the non-compliance to exclude, limit or discharge its liability under the contract for the loss if the insured satisfies subsection (3). (3) The insured satisfies this subsection if it shows that the non-compliance with the term could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.

  4. Slip • Nothing in this Contract of Insurance shall be construed to be a condition precedent or a warranty (except where such warranty is imposed by statute) unless specifically stated to be one in this Contract of Insurance • EXPRESS WARRANTIES: • Warranted class and class maintained • Ocean Success – warranted vessel not to leave Port of Mersin, Turkey before JH2006/010B survey by Sailserve is completed and all requirements complied with.

  5. Question 1 The Protank III’s Cambodian Registry entry has lapsed. At the date of placing, formalities for entry with the Springfield Register are not complete. Under the new act, is the position : • Cover never attaches because the Assured is in Breach of Warranty at the time of inception. • The Insured is not covered for any loss falling within the cover under the policy for as long as the completion of the entry with Springfield Registry is still pending, but is insured in respect of any loss after Class Certificates are issued. • It depends.

  6. Question 2 • Whilst awaiting supply and fitting of the second anchor, Protank III was hit by a tsunami, ran aground and became a total loss. • Assuming for the purposes of this question that the class warranty is not a term that defines the risk as a whole, is the position: • The Insurer would never come on-risk because of the breach of the Class Warranty. • 2. The Insurer is not liable for as long as the vessel is not classed. • 3. The Insured is not covered for any loss falling within the cover under the policy for as long as the completion of the entry with Springfield Registry is still pending, but is insured in respect of any loss after Class Certificates are issued. • 4.  It depends.

  7. Slip • Nothing in this Contract of Insurance shall be construed to be a condition precedent or a warranty (except where such warranty is imposed by statute) unless specifically stated to be one in this Contract of Insurance • EXPRESS WARRANTIES: • Warranted class and class maintained • Ocean Success – warranted vessel not to leave Port of Mersin, Turkey before JH2006/010B survey by Sailserve is completed and all requirements complied with.

  8. Question 3 Sailserve carry out the survey and impose requirements for the replacement of 2 fire extinguishers. Ocean Success leaves Mersin without replacing the fire extinguishers and breaks in half in moderate weather. Which of the following is correct? • The vessel never comes on-risk because of the failure to complete the requirements imposed by Sailserve. • The vessel comes on risk on inception, but goes off-risk when the vessel sails, so the insurer is relieved of liability for the total loss. • The insurer can still recover for the total loss despite a Breach of Warranty by the insured, if the Insured could demonstrate that the non-compliance with the Sailserve Warranty Survey requirements would not have increased the risk of the vessel breaking up.

  9. Question 4 Ocean Success leaves Mersin without the Warranty Survey being performed. She arrives safely at Beirut and the warranty survey is carried out by Sailserve whilst she is loading. All requirements of the survey were complied with. The Vessel then leaves to sail to Izmir. En route the vessel breaks in half in moderate seas and is an actual total loss. What is the position? • The Ocean Success never came on risk so the Insurer is not liable. 2. The Insurer was on-risk from inception but came off-risk on the departure of the vessel from Mersin and is not liable for the total loss. 3. The Insurer was off-risk when the Vessel left Mersin but came on risk after Sailserve completed the survey at Beirut and so the Insurer is, prima facie, liable. 4. It depends.

  10. Changes to Insurance Contract Law – The Bluffers’ Guide

  11. Section 3- The Duty of Fair Presentation • Before a contract of insurance is entered into, the insured must make to the insurer a Fair Presentation of the risk. • The duty imposed by subsection (1) is referred to in this Act as “the duty of Fair Presentation”. • (3) A Fair Presentation of the risk is one— • (a) which makes the disclosure required by subsection (4), • (b) which makes that disclosure in a manner which would be reasonably clear and accessible to a prudent insurer, and • in which every material representation as to a matter of fact is substantially correct, and every material representation as to a matter of expectation or belief is made in good faith. • (4) The disclosure required is as follows, except as provided in subsection (5)— • disclosure of every material circumstance which the insured knows or ought to know, or • failing that, disclosure which gives the insurer sufficient information to put a prudent insurer on notice that it needs to make further enquiries for the purpose of revealing those material circumstances. • (5) In the absence of enquiry, subsection (4) does not require the insured to disclose a circumstance if— • (a) it diminishes the risk, • (b) the insurer knows it, • (c) the insurer ought to know it, • (d) the insurer is presumed to know it, or • (e) it is something as to which the insurer waives information.

  12. Section 8 - Remedies for Breach • (1) The insurer has a remedy against the insured for a breach of the duty of Fair Presentation only if the insurer shows that, but for the breach, the insurer— • (a) would not have entered into the contract of insurance at all, or • (b) would have done so only on different terms. • The remedies are set out in Schedule 1. • A breach for which the insurer has a remedy against the insured is referred to in this Act as a “qualifying breach”. • (4) A qualifying breach is either— • (a) deliberate or reckless, or • (b) neither deliberate nor reckless. • (5) A qualifying breach is deliberate or reckless if the insured — • (a) knew that it was in breach of the duty of Fair Presentation, or • (b) did not care whether or not it was in breach of that duty. • (6) It is for the insurer to show that a qualifying breach was deliberate or reckless.

  13. Question 5 With your Underwriter’s hat on, what do you think of the named assured and vessel information? • It all looks fine to me. I would be happy to write it without any further information. • It looks a little bit odd but it is not really for me to question the management structure of the Assureds in respect of the three Vessels in the Slip. I would consider each Vessel’s age/condition in its own right. • I would be prompted to ask additional questions in respect of the Vessels and management.

  14. Actual Position • Oceanic Shipping & Trading S.A. are long-standing Assureds and is presented by the Broker as the main Assured. • Universal Maritime S.A. was formed by the former principals of MP Management, following its winding-up after fines and penalties imposed for contravention of MARPOL Regulations in respect of a limited bulk carrier service serving Central America/Southern US. Several creditors were left unpaid. Turns out MP Management had a fleet of 4 bulk carriers; 2 were total losses by fire; 1 was scrapped; Prosperity remains. Ownership of Prosperity was transferred when MP Management was dissolved. • Protank III was purchased in 2014 as a scrap sale for up-grading for a specific trading opportunity in respect of coastal shipments of petroleum products serving the Senegal-Congo range. Since her acquisition, Protank III has been subject to 6 PSC detentions.

  15. Schedule 1 - Insurers’ Remedies for Qualifying Breaches General • . This Part of this Schedule applies to qualifying breaches of the duty of Fair Presentation in relation to non- consumer insurance contracts (for variations to them, see Part 2). Deliberate or reckless breaches 2. If a qualifying breach was deliberate or reckless, the insurer— (a) may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, and (b) need not return any of the premiums paid. Other breaches • . Paragraphs 4 to 6 apply if a qualifying breach was neither deliberate nor reckless. • . If, in the absence of the qualifying breach, the insurer would not have entered into the contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must in that event return the premiums paid. • . If the insurer would have entered into the contract, but on different terms (other than terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires. • (1) In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim. (2) In sub-paragraph (1), “reduce proportionately” means that the insurer need pay on the claim only X% of what it would otherwise have been under an obligation to pay under the terms of the contract (or, if applicable, under the different terms provided for by virtue of paragraph 5), where—

  16. Question 6 If I had known the additional information that I am now provided with my position would be as follows : • I would still have written the risk with a smile on my face. • I would be open to the suggestion that the failure to disclose that the Class of Protank III had lapsed, it had been subject to 6 PSC detentions since acquisition, and the criminal record of the principals behind Universal Maritime S A, could have been inadvertent or due to a mistake; I would simply have charged a higher premium and imposed a survey warranty on ProtankIII. • I would be open to the suggestion that the failure to disclose that the Class of Protank III had lapsed, it had been subject to 6 PSC detentions since acquisition, and the criminal record of the principals behind Universal Maritime S A, could have been inadvertent or due to a mistake but I would still have refused to accept the risk at all. • I think it is inconceivable that the failure to disclose the lapse of Class in respect of Protank III, the 6 PSC detentions since acquisition, and the criminal record of principals behind Universal Maritime S A could have been anything but Deliberate and Reckless; I would avoid the Policy, refused to pay claims and will keep the premium.

  17. Thank you for listening and participating. Simon.Todd@incelaw.com Elle.Young@incelaw.com

More Related