Most marine insurance policies exclude losses attributable to “unseaworthiness”. This means that if a vessel was knowingly unseaworthy when used and the loss or damage resulted from it being unseaworthy, the claim can be refused. The axiom of the principle of seaworthiness is well defined in Section 39 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (“MIA 1906”)
In deciding whether a vessel is unseaworthy, Section 39(4) of MIA 1906 states that a vessel is deemed to be seaworthy when
“she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas of the adventure insured.” (emphasis added)
Practically, the Court will look to evidence such as whether the vessel has regular maintenance, manned by a team of competent and qualified marine engineers, carries essential spare parts necessary for the journey, installed with standard fire fighting equipments, crew given proper fire fighting training and master and officers of the vessel exercise due diligence.
“Seaworthiness” is embedded as an implied warranty in a voyage policy. Section 39(1) of MIA 1906 states that
“In a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure insured”
In Quebec Marine Insurance v Commercial Maritime [1870], a vessel was insured on a voyage policy from Montreal to Halifax. After leaving Montreal, the boiler, which had been defective prior to the start of the voyage, broke down, requiring the vessel to seek shelter and for repair. After repairing the boiler, the vessel sailed but was lost during heavy weather. Insurers declined the claim since the vessel had originally sailed in an unseaworthy condition due to the defective boiler, thus breaching the implied warranty of seaworthiness in a voyage policy. The Privy Council agreed that insurers were not liable, even though the breach (the defective boiler) had been put right at the time of the Total Loss.
It shows the importance of words “at the commencement of voyage the ship shall be seaworthy…” in a voyage policy. We will look into time policy in our forthcoming articles.
Should you have any query, please feel free to contact us.
适航和保单（第一部分）航次保单
大多数海事保单对于船舶”不适航”所引起的损失不予承保。也就是说如果投保人明知一艘船处于不适航的状态，而受保的标的物的灭失或损坏由不适航造成，保险公司可以拒赔。英国1906年海上保险法（Marine Insurance Act, MIA 1906）第39条第4点对如何判断一艘船舶是否适航规定如下：
“具有适航能力的船舶，在各方面均有合理的配备和设备, 能承受起海上运务过程中通常遭遇到海上风险。”
在实务上，法院会查看证据，比如船舶是否有正常的维修，是否妥善配备有能力和有资质的船员，装有航程中重要的备件和救火设施，船员是否接受过灭火培训，船长和高级船员是否克尽职责等。
适航的概念在航次保单中已有体现。英国1906年海上保险法第39条第一点：
“航程保单具有默示保证, 即船舶在发航前应具适航力, 能适应保单所指定的
在Quebec Marine Insurance v Commercial Maritime [1870]案中，一艘购买了从蒙特利尔(Montreal)到哈里法克斯(Halifax)航次保单的船舶, 在离开蒙特利尔以后, 由于在航次开始前已经发现有缺陷的锅炉出现问题，需要靠岸修理。等修完锅炉以后，继续航程。不幸，在后续航程途中，由于恶劣天气船舶灭失。保险人”由于锅炉的缺陷，船舶并没有在开航前做到适航”的理由拒绝赔付。案件经多番诉讼，最后英国枢密院同意，虽然锅炉缺陷已经在全损前得到修正，保险人依然不需要对该全损负责。这个裁决的结果，特显了在航次保单中，航次开始前船舶必须适航的重要性。
我们将在下期文章中介绍定期保单对船舶适航的要求。
如果您有任何问题，欢迎与我们联系。
