Sea Lion v Valiant Insurance
Under a loss of hire policy, information disclosed to insurers stated “one hull claim on vessel” whereas the vessel had two hull claims.
Held that materiality was related to the incident which actually did cause loss of hire and not the potential to cause loss of hire.
Also the second claim was immaterial as it resulted in a time loss of 10 days below the deductible.
Summary:
Owners need not disclose claims which did not result in a Hull damage even if the circumstances could have led to a hull claim.
Owners need not disclose claims which did not exceed the Hull deductible and as long as the hull deductible under the to be sought quote is not lower than the deductible of insurance cover at time of incident.
The foregoing decision enables assureds and brokers to lawfully recreate a more attractive presentation to insurers on claims, however it is important to note that any form of recreation may lead to an allegation of nondisclosure by insurers.
See attached file : ALCO20120048 Non disclosure.pdf
未尽披露义务
Sea Lion v Valiant Insurance 案涉及一份租金损失险保单，该保单下，被保险人及其经纪人向保险人披露的信息显示，其索赔记录为 “一个船壳险索赔案件” ，但实际上该船舶发生过两个船壳险的索赔案件。
法院认为,所披露事故与租期损失险之间需具有实质性联系，即披露的事故需实际上导致了租金的损失，而不是可能会导致租金损失。
未经披露的第二项船壳险索赔案与租期损失险之间没有实质性联系，该案件只导致了10天的时间损失，且损失在免赔额内。
总结：
如果事故可能会引起船壳险索赔案件，但没有导致船壳损坏，则船东不需要披露。
如果索赔案件没有超出船壳险免赔额，并且寻求报价时船壳险免赔额不低于事故发生当时的免赔额，则船东不需要披露。
根据以上判决，被保险人及其经纪人在提供索赔记录时，可以合法的向保险人提供对其更具有吸引力的描述。但是需要注意，任何不实的描述都可能导致保险人控告其违反披露义务。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
