Joint insurance issues in the Ocean Victory: The roads not taken

• Autores: Elizabeth Blackburn, Andrew Dinsmore
• Localización: Lloyd's maritime and commercial law quarterly, ISSN 0306-2945, Nº. 1, 2018, págs. 50-72
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • This paper analyses the obiter decision on the joint insurance issues in The Ocean Victory, with a particular focus on the terms to be implied into the co-insureds’ underlying contract. The paper then deals with three points which were not argued before the Supreme Court, namely (i) the demise charterers’ potential claims based on possessory title; (ii) the possible application of the “transferred loss principle” as developed in The Albazero, Linden Gardens v Lenesta, Darlington v Wiltshier and Alfred McAlpine v Panatown ; and (iii) the possible application of the “performance interest principle” as initially developed by Lord Griffiths as his “broader ground” in Linden Gardens, and discussed in Panatown and Swynson v Lowick Rose. The paper concludes that, if such facts arise in future, insurers should advance their claim on the basis of the subrogated actions that arise as a result of the demise charterers’ possessory title. Introduction The Ocean Victory 2 is one of a number of interesting Supreme Court judgments to effect shipping and insurance recently. 3 The dispute was as follows: (i) Demise charterers chartered the vessel on amended Barecon 89 terms from their related head owners on terms containing a safe port warranty. (ii) The demise charterer then time chartered the vessel to Sinochart, who in turn sub-chartered her to Daiichi for a time charter trip. The subsequent charters contained a similar safe port warranty. (iii) Daiichi gave instructions for the vessel to load an iron ore cargo in South Africa and to discharge it at the port of Kashima in Japan.