Boston Fruit Company v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 February 1905 |
| Date | 06 February 1905 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Court of Appeal
Vaughan Williams, Romer, and Stirling, L.JJ.
Boston Fruit Company v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance Company
Marine insurance — Policy effected by agents of owner of ship — Right of charterer to sue on policy
Decision of Sigham, J. affirmed.
MARITIME LAW CASES. 37 Ct. of App.] Boston Fruit Co. v. BRITISH & Foreign Marine Insurance Co. [Ct. of App. Supreme Court of judicature COURT OF APPEAL, Jan. 13, 14, 1G, 17, and Feb. 6,190?. (Before Vaughan Williams, Bomer, and Stirling, L.JJ.) Boston Fruit Company v. British and FOREIGN MARINE INSURANCE C0MPANY.(a) APPEAL FROM THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION Marine insurance - -Policy effected by agents of owner of .skip - Bight of charterer to sue on policy - Authority to effect policy on behalf of charterers - Time charter - Demise - Collision - Negligence of master of chartered ship. The, "plaintiff's, were the charterers of the ship B. which, in consequence of the negligence of the master and crew, came into collision with another ship. In the courts of the United States the owners of the latter ship, in an action, to which the owners. and charterers of B. were parties, recovered damages against the charterers. A policy of insurance on B. had been effected on the instructions of C. and Co., who were agents of the owners, by insurance brokers " as well in their own name as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the subject, matter of this policy does,may, or shall appertain in part or in all," the name of the plaintiffs not being mentioned in the policy. The policy was a valued one on the hull and material, engines and machinery of the ship, and contained a collision clause. The charter-party, which amounted to a demise of the ship, was made between C. and Co. " as agents for the owners" and the plaintiff. It provided that the owners were to maintain the hull and machinery in an efficient state, and the charterers were to appoint and pay the master and crew, and were also to pay for coal, fuel, port charges, and pilotages, and that " in the event of loss of time from collision, 3tranding, want of repairs, breakdown of machinery, or- any cause appertaining to the duties of the owners preventing the working of the vessel for more than twenty-four working hours, the payment of hire shall cease from the hour when detention begins until she be again in an efficient state to resume her service. Further, if in consequence of such deficiency, collision, want of repairs, breakdown, or other causes, the vessel should put into a perl or porta other than those to which she I: ound, port charges, pilotages, and other expenses at those ports shall be borne by the owners ; bv,t should the vessel be driven into port or to anchorage by strips of weather, such detention or loss if time shall fall on the charterers. It is understood in the event of steamer from above causes putting into any port or ports other than those to which she is bound, that the charterers are covered ass to expenses as the owners are by their iriuvaw-e. The owners shall pay for the insurance on ?? vessel.'' held, that the Plaintiffs ?? to, ?? sue the underwaters on the policy??recover the damages paid by them as being a loss covered by the policy, as the persons on whose behalf the policy was effected were alone entitled to the benefit of it; and they had not shown either that it was in fact effected on their behalf or that they had afterwards ratified or adopted the action of the agents ; and there was nothing in the charter- party to show that the owners had contracted to effect an insurance an the ship for the benajd of the charterers, or that the policy ought (o be treated as having been taken out on behalf of the charterers. l)ccirio;i of Bigham, J. affirmed. Action brought by the charterers of a vessel called tbe Barnstaple against certain underwriters, the question to be decided being whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover upon a policy of marine insurance which had been effected by brokers instructed by agents for the owners of the vessel. Bigham, J. di&inissed the action, and the plainii - s appealed. The facts are fully stated in the judgment o£ Vaughan Williams, L, J.Zarver, K.G. and A. Llewelyn JJavics for the appellants. - The appellants are entitled to treat this policy as made on their behalf. Olanes 22 of the charter-party provides that the owners shall pay for tha "Baurance on the vessel, and there was an obligation on them to insure for ihe benefit of the appellants. The policy covers the risks of damage due to accident; damages due to negligence; damage to third personR and also tho ship's share of gei.eral average losses. Under the charter-party the ownei3 are only liable for the first-mentioned risk aiid tuo charterers aro liable for the others, "he collision clause in the policy does not concern the owners. The insurance should therefore be for the benefit of both. It is ioimaterial that the agent does not know for whom he is acting: Small v. United Kingdom Marine Mutual Insurance Association, 8 Asp. Mar. Law Can. 2&3 ; : 76 L. T. Eep. 326,828; (1897) 2 Q. B. 42, 4C,I 311. If there is any obligation or authority on the owner to effect the insurance and the worda of tLe policy are wide enough to include ihe interests f of the time charterers, hv must be taken to have ) effected it on their bofialf: AraonM on Marine Xnaurauea, 2nd adit., p. 210; 7fch edit, pp., 212, 214, as. 172,173; Crowley v. Cohen, 3 B. & Ad. 4VP ; BoitfTi v. Thompson, 11 East, 428; RjUih v. Thompson, 18 East, 274 ; Lucena v. Craufurd, 2 Boa. & P. N. E. 269; Grant v. Hill, 4 Taint. 380; Irving v. Rickardmi, 2 B. & Ad. 193 ; Watson v. Swann, 11 C. B. N. 8. 766 ? York-Antwerp Kates, App. 0. in Carver's Carriage by S.-i, 3rd edit. p. 8£o [Scrviton referred to Philpoi; v...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boston Fruit Company v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Company
...judgment of the Court of Appeal (Vaughun Williams, Romer, and Stirling, L.J J.), repotted 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 37; 92 L. T. Rep. 514; (1905) 1 K. B. 637, affirming a judgment of Bigham, J. at the trial of the action. By a charter-party dated the 10th March 1893, and made between Messrs. B.......
- TTMI Sarl v Statoil ASA (The "Sibohelle")
-
Talbot Underwriting Ltd v Nausch Hogan & Murray Inc. (The Jascon 5)
...when concluding the contract through his subagents, which matters. 58 Thus in Boston Fruit Co. v British & Foreign Marine Insurance Co. [1905] 1 KB 637 where the policy was expressed to be effected by the Brokers John Holman on the instructions of Messrs R. Craggs & Sons, who were agents fo......
-
Graham Joint Stock Shipping Company Ltd v Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Ltd
...Limited v. Merchants' Marine Insurance Company Limited Boston Fruit Company v. British and Foreign Marine Insurance CompanyDID=ASPM 10 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 37, 206 94 L. T. Rep. 806 (1906) A. C. 336 Small and others v. United Kingdom Mutual Insurance CompanyDID=ASPMELR 8 Asp. Mar. Law Cas. 25......