Lloyds

The Act of 1906, while codifying the existing law, did not, how ever, do away with litigation over points not previously decided. It is by no means as comprehensive as some of the continental codes, and while its provisions have proved singularly free from ambiguity since they have seldom been the subject of litigation, there still arise questions outside its scope which have to be de cided in courts of law. It is, nevertheless, to the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 that reference may best be made on points arising out of marine insurance questions, especially where matters of prin ciple and not of detail are concerned.

The Policy.

Reference has already been made to the marine policy, which, in Great Britain, is invariably based upon the tradi tional form which has been evolved from the early policies men tioned in the historical review. The Marine Insurance Act gives a form of policy which may be used, but which is not compulsory. This form is based on the traditional policy, and is, in fact, almost identical with the form adopted by Lloyd's underwriters in 1779 (see LLOYD'S). The custom is, however, to supplement the policy by a clause excluding war risks, while since 1919, as a result of the case of British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co. v. Sanday (Times L.R. 266 and 374) it has become customary to add the frustration clause which prevents underwriters from being held liable for loss due to loss of market caused by the frustration of a voyage owing to arrests, restraints or detainments of kings, princes or peoples.

This policy, archaic in form, and described by Justice Buller as an "absurd and incoherent document," has been so explored in the course of time, by means of legal action, that there remains very little, if any doubt as to the legal interpretation of any of its clauses.

It has already been shown, however, that the policy, by itself, is rarely used, and in modern practice the contract of marine in surance is usually expressed in a policy based upon the traditional form, but supplemented or modified by clauses in which the real terms of the contract are to be sought, rather than in the policy itself.

All policies of marine insurance must be stamped in accordance with the Stamp Act 1891 (54 and ss Vict. c. 39) if they are to have validity in Great Britain.

The scale of stamp duties payable on policies of marine in surance is that of the Finance Act, the current scale in 1928 being that of the Act of 1920 (zo and is Geo. 5 c. 18 s. 41).

The provisions of the Act, together with those of the schedule, prevent any insurance being effected for more than twelve months, but to meet the cases of vessels insured for time which are at sea or in distress at the time the policy expires, the Act of 1901 pro vides that a policy of sea insurance may contain a continuation clause, and shall not be invalid on the ground only that by reason of the clause it may become available for a period of more than twelve months. A policy with a clause of this nature is chargeable

with a stamp duty of sixpence in addition to that otherwise chargeable, and the "Institute time clauses" under which the majority of British vessels are insured, contain a continuation clause which is in conformity with the provisions of the Finance Act of 1901.

The Revenue Act 1903 (3 Edw. 7 c. /6) allows marine policies on building risks to run for periods longer than twelve months, and to be stamped as voyage policies.

The Contract.

From the Marine Insurance Act it is learnt that a contract of marine insurance is one whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured in a manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses. It may, by express terms, or by usage of trade, be extended so as to protect the assured against losses on inland waters or on any land risk which may be incidental to any sea voyage. It is to be noted, however, that subsequent litigation, Muller v. ?Union Maritime (Ll.L. Rep. KB.17. 9o.CA.18. 339. HL. 20.90) throws doubt on whether the contract is identical, with regard to the risk on land, to that with regard to the risk on sea.

The Act defines "maritime perils" as "perils consequent on or incidental to, the navigation of the sea, that is to say, perils of the seas, fire, war perils, pirates, rovers, thieves, captures, seizures, restraints and detainments of princes and peoples, jettison, barra try and any other perils either of the like kind or which may be designated by the policy." Before the Act was passed, case law had decided that "all other perils" meant only perils ejusdem generis with those of the sea, but even now it cannot be said that the end of dispute as to what is, or what is not covered by the policy has been reached, although precedents exist on all the main points. In practice, however, the marine cargo policy is frequently extended by clauses (the express terms of the Act) to cover perils not strictly those of the seas, such as, for instance, theft, the risk of "thieves" in the policy meaning "robbery with violence, or breaking in." Insurances on the hulls of vessels are also extended by clauses, the principal addenda being the indem nification of the assured against liability for collision done to any other ship or vessel ; loss or damage due to accident in loading or discharging, or through the negligence of the master, mariners, engineers or pilots, and loss or damage due to the bursting of boilers, or through latent defects in the machinery or hull.