• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.337-370
• /
• 2009

The Joint Cargo Committee of International Underwriting Association of London (IUA) and Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) have issued the revised version of Institute Cargo Clauses A, B, C, Institute Cargo Clauses (Air) and their accompanying War and Strikes Clauses. The Institute Cargo Clauses ("ICC") were last revised in 1982. Following a two year long consultation process, the latest edition of the ICC clauses became available to the Market on 1st January 2009. The overall result of the amendments to the 1982 ICC has been to create clearer policies that are more favourable to the Assured. Exclusions have also been amended to the advantage of the assured. The Transit Clause has seen a large revision, again more favourable to the Assured. The insurance now attaches within the warehouse or place of storage when the goods are "first moved$\cdots$ for the purpose of the immediate loading into or onto the carrying vehicle or other conveyance for the commencement of transit" whereas previously the insurance would not attach until the goods left the warehouse. Furthermore, the insurance now terminates on completion of unloading from the vessel at (rather than delivery to) the final warehouse or at a warehouse prior to the destination named in the contract of insurance which the Assured or their employees elect to use either for storage or distribution.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.275-295
• /
• 2009

After a long period of development and worldwide consultation, the London-based Joint Cargo Committee has revised the Institute Cargo Clauses (A), (B) & (C) and some ancillary Institute Clauses. The revision mainly include a clarification of the exclusions within the clauses, some modernization of the language of the clauses and new definitions of some terms. With these revisions, the coverage is widened to offer more protection to the assured. This may enable the widely used Institute Cargo Clauses to receive even greater worldwide acceptance. The following are the main changes in the new 2009 ICC compared with the 1982 ICC. 1. Insufficient or unsuitable Packing or Preparation(Clause 4.3): The revised clause is more favourable to the assured because under the revised clause this sub-clause is only applicable to (a) where packing or preparation is carried out by the assured or their employees or (b) packing or preparation takes place before the attachment of the risk. 2. Insolvency or Financial Default (Clause 4.6): The insolvency and financial default wording is incorporated in the revised clauses, making it more favourable to the assured. 3. Unseaworthiness (Clause 5): The revision is more favourable to the assured in that it limits the exclusion in relation to the unfitness of vehicles, vessels or containers to cases where the assured or their employees are privy to such unfitness. 4. Terrorism (Clause 7): A new definition of "terrorism" is introduced and the revised clause also widens the acts of an individual to encompass ideological and religious motives.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.47
• /
• pp.319-335
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to make clean the scope of insurer`s liability through theoretical interpretation and to understand some problems of various excluded risks in law and clauses relating to marine cargo insurance. This study suggest the problems related with the interpretation of the excluded risks in law and clauses. Through continued study on the excluded risks in law and clauses, we should make a system which will satisfy the assured in making the insurance contract.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.21
• /
• pp.41-54
• /
• 2003

The MIA 1906 is a very important rule for the practitioner in Korea since it is often selected as the governing law under the contract of cargo insurance. And we are using both the S.G policy and the new MAR policy. The new MAR policy has the basically different form of cover compared with the S.G policy. So we are a little confused whether some risks are covered or not under the selected clauses. The author considers which risks are covered or not under the specific clauses and compares the Institute cargo clauses with the MIA 1906.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.53-72
• /
• 1991

The marine cargo insurance compensates the cargo losses that happened during navigation . at the early days of the marine insurance, the insurer inclusively covered all risks that happended during navigation. But since the feature of the risks have been changed due to the development of the shipbuilding technique and commerce, the insurer could not bear all of the perils inclusively. So, the insurer have taken the limitation of the risks insured and the losses paid by exclusion clauses. Therefore, the purpose ;of this paper is to compare the exclusion clauses in the new Institute Cargo Clause (hereafter I.C.C.) with those in the former I.C.C.(all risks, F.P.A) and to make clear the scope of insurer's liability through the theoretical interpretation, clarification of various excluded risks in laws and clauses relating to marine cargo insurance. From what 1 mentioned above, 1 conclude that through continued study on the exclusion sin the new I.C.C., we should organize and establish a system which will satisfy both underwriters and the assured in making the application and the effectiveness equal for each party.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2010

According to the commercial law in Korea, a marine cargo insurance contractor (policyholder, insured person, agent) has the duty to disclose risks before establishing an insurance contract and the obligation to notify changes in risks after before establishing the contract. Marine cargo insurance policy clauses include one about the obligation to notify changes in risks. This clause assumes that an insurance contract should be implemented according to what has been answered to the important questions asked by the insurer in connection with the insurant's duty to disclose before establishing an insurance contract, and it stipulates that, if any change in what has been disclosed should be notified to the insurer since it is regarded as a change in risks. Neglecting the obligation to notify may lead to the termination of the appropriate insurance contract by the insurer. The problems here concern the clauses about changes in risks and about the obligation to notify. The problems are like these. Can it be that the circumstances which might be seen in the past as changes in risks according to the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses stipulated long ago are considered as such still today? And a marine cargo insurance policy till valid when changes in risks have not been properly notified by the original discloser of risks to the insured who currently holds the marine cargo insurance policy, which, unlike other insurance policies, is a marketable security? In Korea, the commercial law has a clause the obligation to notify changes in risks established based on the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses. In this regard, this study aims to consider if the clause still valid today or not and, if not, to propose alternatives to the clauses.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.65
• /
• pp.71-94
• /
• 2015

The insurer's right to take legal proceedings in the name of the assured against a third party who has caused loss of or damage to the goods is of particular importance in marine cargo insurance under international trade transaction. The amounts recovered in subrogation actions, known in practice simply as recoveries, form a significant element in the balancing of the cargo insurer's underwriting account by improving ing the loss record. However, even if the carrier involved in the accident have a liability for damages, in some cases can not claim damages in accordance with the after clauses and carrier's exemption clauses indemnity carrier under the contract of carriage. In recent, the dispute cases to argue damages claim of the carrier in connection with business practices of surrender B/L, the claim is dismissed cases in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the after clauses. In the future, the surrender B/L is continually to use as a marine transport method, it may also be interested in insurance subrogation of damages claims to insurance accident by a surrender B/L.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.57
• /
• pp.137-169
• /
• 2013

This article intends to analyse some features in Exclusion Clauses of the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are following. First, the insufficiency of packing or preparation exclusion under the revised Clause 4.3 is now more limited than before and the Clause suggest the test of sufficiency or suitability "to withstand the ordinary incidents of the insured transit". Secondly, the word "proximately" was deleted under the revised Clause 4.5 for the insurer to be identified more easily as a cause, but it remains to be seen whether that re-drafting will be successful. Thirdly, The exclusion under the revised Clause 4.6 does not apply unless the insurer can prove that, at the time the subject-matter insured is loaded on board the vessel, the assured was aware, or in the ordinary course of business should have been aware, that the relevant insolvency or financial default could prvent the normal prosecution of the voyage, and to a person who purchase the goods from the assured in good faith under a binding contract. Fourthly, the exclusion in respect of unseaworthiness of vessel under Clause 5.1.1 applies only where the assured is privy to the unseaworthiness, whereas the exclusion in respect of unfitness of container or conveyance under Clause 5.1.2 includes the privity of the employee. Finally, Clause 7 establishes the definition of terrorism, and adds ideological and religious motive to political motive.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.59
• /
• pp.81-112
• /
• 2013

This article intends to examine main features of revision in relation to the duration of cover in the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are as followings. First, the cover, which had been "warehouse to warehouse", has been extended to what may be called "shelf to unloading". Thus the insurance attaches when the goods are first moved within the warehouse or place of storage at the named place for the purpose of immediate loading for the commencement of transit. Secondly, the new termination Clause 8.1.3 requires an election by the assured, or their employees, to use a vehicle or container, for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit. Thirdly, Clause 10.1, which deals with the assured's voluntary change of voyage, was amended to solve the problem that the words "held covered" could be misunderstood by an assured without specialist knowledge of English marine insurance law to be a guarantee of cover, even where cover would not be commercially available. Finally, Clause 10.2 is designed to solve the so-called "phantom ship problem", arising from the harsh decision in The Prestrioka. The new Clause 10.2 provides protection for an innocent assured in the situation of a phantom ship.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.93-111
• /
• 2014

In this article, I have reviewed the validity of the Retla Clauses in bills of lading. In Tokio Marine(1970), US courts have permitted carriers to include Retla Clauses in their bills of lading that essentially disclaim all responsibility for the required statement. Simon J in The Saga Explorer(2012) disagreed with the decision of no representation in Tokio Marine and held that the statement with the Retla Clauses made on the bills of lading as to the cargo's apparent condition was a fraudulent misrepresentation. Simon J also requested a strong carriers' honest conduct. However, because the shippers always request the clean bill of lading for trade purpose and never call for a substitute bill of lading showing the true condition of goods, carriers will inevitably continue to clause bills of lading if they have no other better way of protecting themselves in the situation of Tokio Marine or The Saga Explorer. For the present, the decision of misrepresentation in The Saga Explorer might be helpless to change the position of the assignees of the bills of lading. And it seems that the debate on the validity of the Retla Clauses in bills of lading will be continued for the time being. In these circumstances, if the buyers hope to void the potential dispute, they may have a special agreement in the sale of goods contract, for example, requiring a pre-shipment inspection of the goods so as to know the actual condition of the goods on shipment.