• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.133-146
• /
• 2020

In the UK's the insurance law 2015, a remedy for breach of warranty in marine insurance was introduced. Also, if the insured proves that breach of warranty in marine insurance does not affect damages, the insurer pays the insurance money to the insured. The UK's marine insurance law has served as the governing law that has been the standard for the marine insurance industry for a long time. Korea and China were heavily influenced by the UK maritime insurance law. Therefore, this study analyzed the cases of breach of warranty in marine insurance in Korea and China. Through this, the insurer avoid the insurance contract for an accident that occurred after the breach of warranty. this result will be different under the new revised insurance law system. With the revision to The Insurance Act 2015, one of the biggest change in the insurance system is that it is possible to remedy of the violations of warranty. However, such a revision of the law requires considerable attention as it also changes the interpretation and judgment of the courts. Accordingly, a practical response of the insurance industry is required. It is necessary to prepare for possible disputes in practice.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• 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.50
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2011

The retroactive insurance is the system that the Assured, the principal of insurance contract shall be entitled to recover for insured(beneficiary in insurance of persons) loss during the period of insurance covered by this insurance, not withstanding that the loss had occurred before the contract of insurance concluded. The retroactive insurance is applicable to both property insurance and insurance of persons. The commercial law of Korea stipulates its rules in the insurance volume. The ultimate and definite articles of cargo insurance about the retroactive insurance are stipulated in MIA and ICC. In general insurance of persons stipulates relevant articles in the clause. Even though articles pertinent to the retroactive insurance are written explicitly in relevant law, it is difficult to settle the claim just by using specified rules of related regulations. Therefore, a claim is settled down based on the actual facts. After studying some of the actual dispute facts connected with the retroactive insurance having properties mentioned, this paper suggests controversial points and alternative ideas.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.27-47
• /
• 2009

This study aims to present definite directions on practical insurance business and letter of credits through an analysis centering on each section of Article 28 of UCP600. Accordingly, we sought adefinite understanding of regulations on insurance documents and present things to be improved. And we speculate the issues on insurance documents focusing on excessive involvement of insurance in banking according to the convention of insurance business, each mortgage having liability according to contract based on the regulations on acceptance of collective insurance documents, problems in acceptance of expiry date recorded in insurance documents and alternatives. This study focuses on activation of insurance documents as contract documents of marine insurance, aiming to present interpretational base in a practical view rather than technological directions.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.63-74
• /
• 2012

The Korean Conflict of Laws Act recently incorporated much of the European Union's recent revision in "EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)"(hereinafter Rome Convention). With the revision of Rome Convention applied to contractual obligations,"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)"(hereinafter Rome I) has taken effect on December 2009. Before the effectivation of Rome I, "Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)"(hereinafter Rome II) has come into effect on January 2009. This means the revision of certain rules and its practical implications need an in-depth study on governing law rules under Rome I which provides newly effected governing laws applicable to contractual obligations. Moreover, uniform choice of law rules on non-contractual obligations needs to focus especially on marine insurance contract. Where policy assignment and subrogation causes, how to decide the governing law which will be applied to the insurer as a third party? This article attempts to analyze emerging legal issues in legal regimes determining choice of law, especially those in international marine insurance contracts. This will help Korean practitioners to be dialed in legal affairs under English Law as the governing law in their contracts.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• 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
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 1994

One of the fundamental duty of the assured in a marine insurance contract is maintaining seaworthiness of the ship insured. Since duty of the seaworthiness of ship is a shipowners implied warranty in the marine insurance, the breach of the duty of seaworthiness by assured is recognized as immunity for the underwriter. This is a measure to protect the underwriter through prevention of unexpected casualties which may be occurred from the unseaworthiness. In the Korean Marine Insurance Act the legal character of the assured's duty of seaworthiness is not clear whether it is a legal duty or contracted one. Accordingly, in this paper the author pointed out that the duty of seaworthiness of the ship should be interpreted according to the English Law. As a conclusion, the hull insurance does not require even implied warranty concerning seaworthiness, since it is recognized as one of implied fundamental warranty of the English Marine Insurance Act. Especially, this issue pointed out is very meaningful and advisable under the consideration of the existing conditions of the marine insurance regime for the distant-water fishing vessels and the catch carriers in Korea.