i-law

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

English Marine Insurance and General Average Law

Howard Bennett*

CASES

88. Global Process Systems Inc v. Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd (The Cendor MOPU) 1

Cargo insurance—inherent vice—fortuity

An oil rig being carried on a barge from the United States to Malaysia and insured under a policy incorporating the Institute Cargo Clauses (A) (1/1/82) sustained serious damage as a result of the action of the waves when rounding the Cape of Good Hope in November. It was common ground that the conditions were no worse than reasonably to be expected at that time of year in those waters. The insurers’ defence of inherent vice was upheld at first instance but rejected on appeal. The insurers appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed.
Held: (1) The fundamental question was whether the occurrence of a fortuitous event satisfied insurance law’s test for proximate cause. If so, the fact that the fortuitous event was able to inflict the damage by reason of its impact upon or interaction with some preexisting characteristic of the insured property did not provide the insurer with a defence based upon inherent vice. (2) The foreseeability of an event as a possible occurrence was not incompatible with the concept of fortuity: Mayban General Insurance v. Alston Power Plants 2 overruled. (3) On the facts, the legs of the oil rig possessed an inherent susceptibility to wave damage, which manifested itself in the development of stress fractures. However, the loss was occasioned by the complete fracturing of one of the legs, which in turn led to the fracturing of the remaining two legs. The proximate cause of the loss of the first leg was not simply progressive development of stress fractures, but the particular impact of a particular “leg breaking” wave.
Comment: The decision of the Supreme Court directs attention to the proximate cause of the loss. In accordance with the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 55, the result of finding that a loss is proximately caused by inherent vice is that it is not caused by an insured peril. Where, however, the goods are damaged because an inherent susceptibility interacts with a fortuitous peril, the peril will be considered as the proximate cause.3 It is unclear whether it will be possible as a matter of legal principle to arrive at the conclusion that an


ENGLISH MARINE INSURANCE AND GENERAL AVERAGE LAW

47

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.