header-logo header-logo

06 October 2011
Issue: 7484 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Marine insurance

P.T. Buana Samudra Pratama v Marine Mutual Insurance Association (NZ) Ltd [2011] EWHC 2413 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 146 (Sep)

The “follow” clause in a contract of marine insurance had to be given that meaning which it would be reasonably understood to have. In deciding what that meaning was, it was necessary to bear in mind the commercial purpose of “follow” clauses in marine insurance policies. That was part of the background of which the assured and underwriters would be aware.

The real question in the instant case was whether or not the words used in the policy indicated an intention by the parties to restrict the ambit of the follow clause in the manner suggested by the defendant, namely, to limit its ambit to an obligation to follow as to the quantum of claims within the terms of the policy, but not as to whether or not the claim in question was within the terms of the policy.
 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll