Lishman v Northern Maritime Insurance Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1865 |
| Year | 1865 |
| Court | Exchequer |
Insurance on Freight - Warranty as to Amount of Insurance on Hull - Concealment - Non-communication of a material Fact coming to the Knowledge of the Assured after Acceptance of Risk but before issuing the Policy.
A proposal for insurance on freight was made and accepted on the 11th of March. On the 16th, the ship was lost. On the 17th, the assured, with knowledge of the loss, but without communicating it to the insurers, demanded a stamped policy. The insurers then, for the first time, required to be informed as to the amount of the insurance upon the hull, and inserted in the policy (which the assured accepted), the following warranty, “Hull warranted not insured for more than 2700l. after the 20th March.” The vessel was then insured for an additional 500l. in an insurance club, by the rules of which all ships belonging to members were insured from the 20th of March in one year to the 20th of March in the following year, “and so on from year to year unless ten days' notice to the contrary be given;” and in the absence of notice the managers of the club were to renew each policy on its expiration:—
Held, affirming the decision of the Court below, that, notwithstanding those rules, the club policy was not a continuing policy beyond the 20th of March of the current year; and that the ship having been lost before that date, no new effective policy could have been made, and, consequently, the warranty was complied with.
Held, also, that the risk having been accepted by the insurers on the 11th of March, the addition on the 17th of a term for their benefit, and not affecting the risk, did not prevent the policy from being one drawn up in respect of the risk accepted on the 11th, and, therefore, upon the authority of Cory v. Patton (
APPEAL from the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, discharging a rule to enter a verdict for the defendants.
The facts of the case are fully set out in the report below.F1
Herschell, Q.C. (with him C. Crompton), for the defendants. This case is distinguishable from Cory v. Patton.F2 Admitting that the law is, that where there has been a previous agreement for an insurance, followed by a policy pursuing the terms of such agreement, the obligation to disclose material facts only extends to the time of such previous agreement, here the terms of the policy did not correspond with those of the previous agreement. There never was a previous agreement for the insurance ultimately effected by the policy. The principle is that where there is a complete agreement binding in honour, and all that remains to be done is to issue a stamped policy embodying such agreement, the policy is to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K/s Merc-scandia Xxxxii v Certain Lloyd's Underwriters and Others
...insurer) seeks to vary the contractual risk. The right of avoidance only applies to the variation not to the original risk, Lishman v. Northern Maritime Insurance Co (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 179 and Iron Trades Mutual v. Cie de Seguros [1991] 1 Re. L.R. 213, 224 and The Star Sea para. 54 page 18......
-
Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG; The DC Merwestone
...knowledge of the insured after the cover was issued—see Cory v Patton (1872) LR7 QB 304, Lishman v Northern Maritime Insurance Co (1875) LR 10 CP 179, Niger Co Ltd v Guardian Assurance Co Ltd (1922) 13 Lloyd's Rep 75 and New Hampshire Insurance Co v MGN Ltd [1997] LRLR 24, all confirmed in......
-
Cia Maritima San Basilio SA v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd
...The [1965] P. 294; [1965] 3 W.L.R. 91; [1965] 2 All E.R. 283, C.A. Lishman v. Northern Maritime Insurance Co. (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 216; (1875) L.R.10 C.P. 179. Michael v. Gillespy (1857) 2 C.B.N.S. 627. Morse v. Slue (1674) 1 Vent. 190, 238. Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation v. Sjoforsakri......
-
Manifest Shipping Company Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Ltd (Star Sea)
... ... 3 Section 39(5) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 concerns the case where "with the privity of the assured, the ... in fact delegated to an English company based in London, Kappa Maritime Ltd. At the material times the directors of Kappa were Captain Stefanos ... ...
-
Post-Contract Disclosures in Insurance Law
...v. Reid (1843) 6 Man. & G.1; 134 E.R. 784. 5 Cory v. Patton (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 304. 6 Lishman v. The Northern Maritime Insurance Co. (1875) L.R. 10 C.P. 179. 7 Niger Co. Ltd. v. Guardian Assurance Co. (1922) 13 Ll. L. Rep. 75. 8 Whitwell v. Autocar Fire and Accident Insurance Co. Ltd. (1927......
-
The continuing duty of utmost good faith
...and Marine Insurance Co (1872) LR 7 QB 517; Cory & another v Patton (1874) LR 9 QB 577; Lishman v Northern Maritime Insurance Co (1875) LR 10 CP 179. Toulmin v Inglis (1808) 1 Camp 421; Shaw v Robberds (1837) 6 Ad & El 75; Pim v Reid (1843) 6 Man & G 1; Thompson v Hopper (1856) 6 EB & E 172......