Marine Insurance in UK Law

It may well be that, when two persons are jointly insured and their interests are inseparably connected so that a loss or gain necessarily affects them both, the misconduct of one is sufficient to contaminate the whole insurance ( Phillips on Marine Insurance, vol.

The rule is statutory and courts have to apply, not to change it. Where a loss is caused by two perils operating simultaneously at the time of loss and one is wholly excluded because the policy is warranted free of it, the question is whether it can be denied that the loss was so caused, for if not the warranty operates. Accordingly the explanation of the two cases cited in this connection, Leyland Co. v. Norwich Union and Reischer v. Borwick, I think, is this.

I prefer to give a wide interpretation to the rule, as Lord Esher, Master of the Rolls, did in Byrne v. Brown (1889) 22 Queen's Bench Division, p. 657. It seems to me that when two parties are in dispute in an action at law, and the determination of that dispute will directly affect a third person in his legal rights or in his pocket, in that he will be bound to foot the bill, then the Court in its discretion nay allow him to be added as a party on such terns as it thinks fit.

Unless Lowe v Lombank is authority to the contrary, there is no legal principle that states that parties cannot agree to assume that a certain state of affairs is the case at the time the contract is concluded or has been so in the past, even if that is not the case, so that the contract is made upon the basis that the present or past facts are as stated and agreed by the parties.

The assured does not undertake that the ship or cargo shall not be captured. There is merely a stipulation that the policy shall not apply to such a loss"-. I think the law in this respect in the same both for marine and non-marine, namely, that if the loss is caused by two causes effectively operating at the same time and one is wholly expressly excluded from the policy, the policy does not pay.

All these formulations reject the suggestion that even gross negligence will suffice. The illuminating question therefore becomes "why did he not inquire?" If the judge is satisfied that it was because he did not want to know for certain, then a finding of privity should be made. If, on the other hand, he did not enquire because he was too lazy or he was grossly negligent or believed that there was nothing wrong, then privity has not been made out.

Where the dispute is between two contracting parties, A and B, and A sues B in a non-contractual forum, and A's claims fall within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction clause in their contract, and the interests of other parties are not involved, effect will in all probability be given to the clause.