• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제33권
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2007

Section 39(5) of Marine Insurance Act 1906 concerns the case where with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state. The underwriters argue that the assured had"blind-eye knowledge" of the particular respect in which the ship was unseaworthy. Blind-eye knowledge requires a conscious reason for blinding the eye. There must be at least a suspicion of a truth about which one do not want to know and which one refuse to investigate. What has caused greater difficulty is the broad provision in s.17 which appears to be unlimited in its scope. The expression "utmost good faith" appears to derive from the idea of uberrimae fidei, words which indeed appear in the sidenote. The concept of uberrima fides does not appear to have derived from civil law and it has been regarded as unnecessary in civilian systems. S.17 raises many questions. But only two of them are critical to the decision of the present appeal-the fraudulent claim question and the litigation question. It is however necessary to discuss them in the context of a consideration of the problematic character of s.17. In the Star Sea Case, for the defendants to succeed in their defence under this part of the case the defendants have to show that claim was made fraudulently. They have failed to obtain a finding of fraud. It is not enough that until part of the way through the trial the owners failed to disclose to the defendants would have wished to see in order to provide them with some, albeit inadequate, evidential support for their alleged defence under s.39(5). The defence under s.17 fails. The Purpose of this work is to analyze the Star Sea Case, and to explore problems of the MIA relating to the judgement of this case.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권1호
• /
• pp.309-331
• /
• 2009

In 25th April. 2008, the Korea legislature gave advance notice on the Revision Bill of Commercial Law in Insurance Division in partial, one of which is the principle of utmost good faith to be codified in accordance with the effectuation of the Revision Bill enforcement. For this, even though the disclosure duty is not included in the Revision Bill, it should also be discussed in relation to the principle of utmost good faith because it is based upon the principle of utmost good faith and forms a part of utmost good faith. In Marine Insurance industry in Korea, there are the sections and the clauses in relation to the English governing law included in the Policies and the Clauses used in Korea and, also, they still come into effect for the Korea Courts' judgements. So. we, Korea, should carefully pay attention to the trend of English courts' leading case, academic world and insurance industry on the disclosure duty in U.K. This study is thus based upon sections 17 and 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 and sections 651, 652 and 655 of Commercial Law in Insurance Division, which appear throughout this work. The objective of this work is to analyse the duty of disclosure on Korean and English Insurance Laws including cases cited in this work, comparing the differences resulted from the analysis of the two countries‘laws and legal cases.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제15권
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this paper is to consider how to decide the cause of loss or damage to the transport goods when maritime accident occurs. In marine insurance, the underwriter is liable for any loss or damage proximately caused by a risk insured(MIA Art.55). So it is very important to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage to ascertain whether it is to be recoverable under the policy. But there is no definite conception or rule what is the proximate cause. It was left to the tribunal as a question of fact. In this paper, I will suggest the general rules to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage of the transport goods in marine insurance. First, in MIA 1906, there is the rule of proximate causation and it has been established the effective causation by cases since 1918. Second, in Institute Cargo Clauses(B) & (C), there are rules of considerably relaxed standards to determine the causation of loss of or damage using the "attributable to" and "caused by" basis. Third, it is noted, under the complex causation situation, there are difference basises to decide the liability of underwriters between the case of successive occurrence of single risk and the case of concurrent occurrence of several risks. Forth, in practice, it couldn't be ascertained the underwrier's liability by a definite rule and it should be fully considered the circumstances and conditions of the loss.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제12권
• /
• pp.327-348
• /
• 1999

Insurance lawyers have been curiously uninterested in the legal aspects of the use of insurance in export sales. It is an area which shows several doubtful points and some difficulties. According to the law of international sales and commercial credits, the primary question is whether the insurance contracts and documents that are produced satisfy the requirements of the sales and the credit contracts. From the point of view of insurance law, the question is how the insurance arrangements can be made to fit those requirements. The purpose of this study is to review problems that may occur in insuring cargoes in export sales.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제49권
• /
• pp.257-281
• /
• 2011

The duty of utmost good faith is found in sections 17-20 of MIA 1906. Critics of the current legal regime on the pre-contractual duty from the viewpoint of the assured, have been concentrated on two points in particular. First, the scope of the duty is so wide that it imposes too high burden on the assured. The second criticism is directed at the remedy, prescribed by the MIA 1906, s.17, against breach of the duty. This article intends to analyse the legal implications of proposals in CP 2007 for reforming pre-contractual duty of utmost good faith of business assured in English insurance contracts law and the problems of proposals. The Law Commissions are proposing four fundamental changes to meet the long-standing criticism and the results of analysis are as following. First, the Law Commissions are proposing a change in the test of constructive knowledge in relation to the duty of disclosure so that a business assured will be obliged to disclose facts which he knows or a reasonable ought to know in the circumstances. Secondly, deviating from the current legal position, the Law Commissions are proposing that if a business assured has made a misrepresentation, but the assured honestly and reasonably believe what it said to be true, the insurer should not have any remedy due to the misrepresentation. The proposal is designed to protect the reasonable expectations of business assured at the pre-contractual stage. Thirdly, the Law Commissions are proposing to change the test for materiality by replacing the "prudent insurer" test by a "reasonable assured" test. The proposed test would focus on the question of what a reasonable assured in the circumstances would think what is relevant to the judgment of the insurer. Finally, the Law Commissions are proposing flexible remedies in case of the breach of the duty. The Law Commissions are proposing no remedy when an assured is acting honestly and reasonably, while avoidance in case of dishonesty. On the other hand, The Law Commissions seem to have an intention to introduce a compensatory remedy in case of negligent breach of the duty.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제24권
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제24권6호
• /
• pp.19-36
• /
• 2020

Purpose - This paper analyzes how to interpret the legal view of the precedents to the UK Insurance Act 2015, comparing it to the UK Marine Insurance Act (MIA) 1906 with a focus on the relationship between the duty of uberrimae fidei and the duty of disclosure. Furthermore, this study focuses on the judgment of the Korean Supreme Court in a case, that examined whether the legal nature of the duty of disclosure or duty of uberrimae fidei in insurance law can be considered as a matter related to the insurer's liability when the applicable terms of English law are incorporated under the insurance contract. Design/methodology - This paper belongs to the field of explanatory legal study, which aims to explain and test whether the choice of law is linked to the conditions that occur in the reality of judicial practice. The approach that is used toward this problem is the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves studying and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problem. Findings - Regarding the requirements and effects of breach of the duty of disclosure, if English law and the Korean Commercial Act are handled differently from each other and Korean law is recognized as the applicable law outside of the insurer's liability, it may be whether the insurer's immunity under English law is contrary to s.633 of the Korean Commercial Act. In considering the breach of the duty of disclosure as a matter of the insurer's liability, even if English law is applied as a governing law, the question of how to interpret the agreement of the governing law in this case may also be raised in the interpretation of Korean International Private Law in relation to the applicable law that applies to the rest of the matter, excluding the matters of liability. Originality/value - According to the Korean Supreme Court judgement under the governing law of the MIA 1906, the basis for recognizing the assured's pre-and post-contractual duty of disclosure is separate, and the only important matters to be notified by the assured after the conclusion of the insurance contract are those that are "relevant" and "material circumstances" that are "relevant" to the matter in question after the conclusion of the insurance contract.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제13권
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 2000

One of the central and primary doctrine of the law of marine insurance is that the contract of indemnity entered into by assured and insurer is a contract of the utmost good faith. The notion of utmost good faith is a well established doctrine derived from the celebrated case of Carter v. Boehm(1766), decided long before the inception of the Marine Insurance Act(MIA). With the codification of the law, the principle found expression in sections $17{\sim}20$ of the MIA 1906. In section 17 is presented the general duty to observe the utmost good faith, with the following sections introducing particular aspects of the doctrine, namely, the duty of the assured and brokers to disclose material circumstances, and to avoid making misrepresentations. It is somewhat surprising that section 17, being a long founded doctrine, has not attracted the attention of the courts until very recently. Given that the most significant manifestations of uberrimae fidei are non-disclosure and misrepresentations, fulfillment of the obligation of utmost good faith was, not unreasonably, for a long time perceived in terms of the duty to disclose and not to misrepresent. However, Black King Shipping Corporation v. Massie, 'Litsion Pride'(1985) has clarified that the duty of disclosure stems from the duty of utmost good faith, and not vice versa. The duty of utmost good faith is an independent and overriding duty, with the ensuring sections on disclosure and representations providing mere illustrations of that duty. It is now clear that there are important questions with regard to the general doctrine and as to the nature and scope of any duty of good faith continuing after the contract of insurance is made which require separate and fuller discussion. The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and scope of the duty of utmost good faith.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제53권
• /
• pp.207-229
• /
• 2012

In IP 7 and LCCP 201, Law Commission considers the insured's duty of good faith after the formation of the contract. This article intends to review and analyse the legal implications of proposals in IP 7 and LCCP 201. The results of analysis are following. First, Law Commission propose to end the remedy of avoidance under MIA 1906 section 17, because avoidance of past claims is unprincipled, impractical and unnecessarily harsh. Secondly, LC proposes that an insured who makes a fraudulent claim should forfeit the whole claim which the fraud relates, but that the fraud should not invalidate previous and legitimate claims. Thirdly, LC proposes to introduce a statutory right for the insurer to claim damages for the reasonable, foreseeable costs of investigate a fraudulent claim in specific circumstances and that damages would be limited to those cases where the insurer can show an actual, net loss. Finally, LC provisionally propose that an express fraud clause should be upheld in business insurance, whereas in consumer insurance, any term which purports to give the insurer greater rights in relation to fraudulent claims that those set out in statute would be of no effect.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제61권
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.