• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2022

Whether or not insurance policies are securities has been debated for nearly a century. The position of claiming that an insurance policy has securities properties is premised on the concomitant nature of the maritime cargo insurance policy to the bill of lading. However, in reality today, marine cargo insurance policies are transferred between parties involved in international trade as an integral part of the bill of lading, and the two securities go through the same distribution process. The issue of recognizing the securities properties of an insurance policy is particularly debated when the insurance policy is issued in a order or bearer form. In a normal insurance policy, the name of the right holder, such as the claimant, is written on the insurance policy, and it is not usually transferred by endorsement. In principle, insurance policies are interpreted as neither securities nor negotiable securities. Sometimes, research is being done on legal reform to respond to digitalization of securities, and bills of lading are the subject of research. If marine cargo insurance policies, which are sometimes premised on distribution, have securities properties, the status of the regulations on digitization of bills of lading currently being studied may be helpful for digitization of marine cargo insurance policies. Under these circumstances, the securities of marine cargo insurance policies are reviewed based on recent practices.

• 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.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.307-316
• /
• 2014

In view of the increased threat arising terrorism, the International Maritime Organization(IMO) adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code (ISPS Code) which attached to the SOLAS Convention. The ISPS Code requires a comprehensive set of measures to enhance the security of ships and port facilities. For example, a shipowner must obtain the International Ship Security Certificate(ISSC). If the carrying vessel has not ISSC, the ship may be detained by the contracting governments. The Joint Cargo Committee(JCC) in London adopted the Cargo ISPS Endorsement, in which the assured who knowingly ships the cargoes on a non-ISPS Code compliant vessel will have no cover. However, where there is no the Cargo ISPS Endorsement in a Marine Cargo Insurance Policy and the cargo is carried by a non-ISPS Code certified vessel, the legal problem is whether or not it would constitute a breach of an implied warranty of seaworthiness and/or an implied warranty of legality. The purpose of this article is to analyze the potential legal issue on the relations between non-ISPS Code compliant vessel and two implied warranties under Marine Insurance Act(1906) in U.K.

• 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.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.27-42
• /
• 2005

The S.G. Policy form contains the words "the good ship or vessel called the.....". The words "good ship" mean that the ship is deemed to be seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage and this was very necessary in the day when a separate policy was issued for each voyage. In fact the warranty do seaworthiness still applies to all voyage policies. Nevertheless, the law does not apply an absolute warranty of seaworthiness to a time policy, so a ship is not required to be seaworthy at the time the hull policy is effected. The implied warranty of seaworthiness does not extend to good, for the underwriter is not responsible for their condition, apart fro the action of the perils insured against. The implied warranty of seaworthiness is limited to the vessel herself, and does not extend to a lighter or other craft used to convey the goods to the ship. The underwriters waive any breach of the implied warranties of the seaworthiness of the ship and fitness of the ship to carry the subject-matter insured to destination, unless the assured or their servants are privy to such unseaworthiness of unfitness.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• 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.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.34
• /
• pp.77-108
• /
• 2007

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs md, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.51-79
• /
• 1994

Section 55 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against but is not liable for any loss not proximately caused by a peril insured against. It is, therefore, essential to determine whether it is to be recoverable under the Marine Insurance Policy attaching the Institute Cargo or Hull Clauses. But a number of important losses are excluded from the policy by subsection 2 of the same section, unless the policy otherwise provides, although these losses are proximate causes of them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of proximate cause and excluded losses in the Act. The method of this study is a literature survey. In summary, (1) if the loss is considered to have been proximately caused by a certain peril, and the peril is insured against, the claim is recoverable, (2) if there are different causes resulting in separate losses, the claims recoverable will be those due to insured perils, (3) when the effective cause of the loss is established, remote causes can be ignored, (4) when causes of loss are combined, the claim is recovera-ble if the cause which is proximate in efficiency is an insured peril, (5) if there are two causes, equal in efficiency, the loss is recoverable if one of the causes is an insured peril, but always providing the other cause is merely an uninsured peril rather than a specific exclusion, (6) although certain losses are exclu-ded by section 55 (2) of the Act, with the exception of wilful misconduct of the insured, it is permitted for provision to be made in the policy to widen the terms to include such losses.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.5
• /
• pp.39-57
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This research uses ocean marine insurance (OMI) statistics, international emails, focus-group interviews, and surveys to fill the gap between the theory of behavioral insurance, particularly status quo bias (SQB), and the practice of OMI in Korea. The contractual forms of OMI, the oldest and most globalized form of commercial insurance, were developed in the UK as the Institute Cargo Clauses in 1906 and revised in 1963, 1982, and 2009. SQB has been academically explored, mostly in health insurance and the financial services sector, but never in OMI. Thanks to the availability of OMI statistics in Korea, we can conduct SQB research here for the first time in this field. Design/methodology - We show the existence of SQB in the OMI of Korea through Korean statistics between 2009 and 2018, email correspondence with experts in the UK, Germany, and Japan, focus-group interviews with Korean OMI underwriters, an in-depth interview with one underwriter, and a survey of 15 OMI insureds (company representatives). Findings - We find that Korean foreign traders rely on the old-type OMI contracts developed in 1963, whereas other industrialized countries use the newest type of OMI contract developed in 2009. With a simple loss ratio analysis during 2009-2018, we show that the behavior of insurers has little to do with rational profit maximization and is instead driven by irrational bias, as they forgo the more profitable contracts provided by the new clauses by keeping the old clauses. The consistent addiction to old types of contracts in the OMI market suggests strong SQB among Korean exporters, importers, bankers, or insurers, which we confirmed in our interviews and survey. Originality/value - This research has significant originality and academic value because it reports new findings with crucial implications for the development of efficient trade practices and policy. First, this research is based on actual statistics that have not been used in previous Korean research on OMI. Second, this research shows that all-risk OMI policies provide more value to insureds, in terms of coverage given premium, than partial coverage policies, which differs from arguments previously made in Korea. Third, this research reveals strong SQB in Korea, where foreign trade plays a pivotal role in economic growth. That bias could be attributable to uninformed traders, informed but idle insurers, or conservative bankers. Fourth, to further develop foreign trade, policy initiatives are needed to review the current practices of OMI contracts and move forward with the new contract forms. All of these findings and arguments are both new and important.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.