Marine News

Health Insurance

2009-03-07T07:48:00.000-08:00

Health insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term health insurance is generally used to describe a form of insurance that pays for medical expenses. It is sometimes used more broadly to include insurance covering disability or long-term nursing or custodial care needs. It may be provided through a government-sponsored social insurance program, or from private insurance companies. It may be purchased on a group basis (e.g., by a firm to cover its employees) or purchased by individual consumers. In each case, the covered groups or individuals pay premiums or taxes to help protect themselves from high or unexpected healthcare expenses. Similar benefits paying for medical expenses may also be provided through social welfare programs funded by the government.

By estimating the overall risk of healthcare expenses, a routine finance structure (such as a monthly premium or annual tax) can be developed, ensuring that money is available to pay for the healthcare benefits specified in the insurance agreement. The benefit is administered by a central organization, most often either a government agency or a private or not-for-profit entity operating a health plan.^[1]

[hide]

[edit] History and evolution

Main article: History of insurance

The concept of health insurance was proposed in 1694 by Hugh the Elder Chamberlen from the Peter Chamberlen family. In the late 19th century, "accident insurance" began to be available, which operated much like modern disability insurance.^[2].This payment model continued until the start of the 20th century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.^[3]

Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the US by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. While there were earlier experiments, the origins of sickness coverage in the US effectively date from 1890. The first employer-sponsored group disability policy was issued in 1911.^[4]

Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay all other health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle to late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures, and also most prescription drugs, but this was not always the case.

Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations.^[4] The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.^[5]^[6]

[edit] How it works

A health insurance policy is a contract between an insurance company and an individual. The contract can be renewable annually or monthly. The type and amount of health care costs that will be covered by the health plan are specified in advance, in the member contract or Evidence of Coverage booklet. The individual policy-holder's payment obligations may take several forms^[7]:

Premium: The amount the policy-holder pays to the health plan each month to purchase health coverage.
Deductible: The amount that the policy-holder must pay out-of-pocket before the health plan pays its share. For example, a policy-holder might have to pay a $500 deductible per year, before any of their health care is covered by the health plan. It may take several doctor's visits or prescription refills before the policy-holder reaches the deductible and the health plan starts to pay for care.
Copayment: The amount that the policy-holder must pay out of pocket before the health plan pays for a particular visit or service. For example, a policy-holder might pay a $45 copayment for a doctor's visit, or to obtain a prescription. A copayment must be paid each time a particular service is obtained.
Coinsurance: Instead of paying a fixed amount up front (a copayment), the policy-holder must pay a percentage of the total cost. For example, the member might have to pay 20% of the cost of a surgery, while the health plan pays the other 80%. Because there is no upper limit on coinsurance, the policy-holder can end up owing very little, or a significant amount, depending on the actual costs of the services they obtain.
Exclusions: Not all services are covered. The policy-holder is generally expected to pay the full cost of non-covered services out of their own pocket.
Coverage limits: Some health plans only pay for health care up to a certain dollar amount. The policy-holder may be expected to pay any charges in excess of the health plan's maximum payment for a specific service. In addition, some plans have annual or lifetime coverage maximums. In these cases, the health plan will stop payment when they reach the benefit maximum, and the policy-holder must pay all remaining costs.
Out-of-pocket maximums: Similar to coverage limits, except that in this case, the member's payment obligation ends when they reach the out-of-pocket maximum, and the health plan pays all further covered costs. Out-of-pocket maximums can be limited to a specific benefit category (such as prescription drugs) or can apply to all coverage provided during a specific benefit year.
Capitation: An amount paid by an insurer to a health care provider, for which the provider agrees to treat all members of the insurer.
In-Network Provider: A health care provider on a list of providers preselected by the insurer. The insurer will offer discounted coinsurance or copayments, or additional benefits, to a plan member to see an in-network provider. Generally, providers in network are providers who have a contract with the insurer to accept rates further discounted from the "usual and customary" charges the insurer pays to out-of-network providers.
Prior Authorization: A certification or authorization that an insurer provides prior to medical service occuring. Obtaining an authorization means that the insurer is obligated to pay for the service, assume it matches what was authorized. Many smaller, routine services do not require authorization^[8]
Explanation of Benefits: A document sent by an insurer to a patient explaining what was covered for a medical service, and how they arrived at the payment amount and patient responsibility amount^[9]

Prescription drug plans are a form of insurance offered through some employer benefit plans in the US, where the patient pays a copayment and the prescription drug insurance part or all of the balance for drugs covered in the formulary of the plan.

Some, if not most, health care providers in the United States will agree to bill the insurance company if patients are willing to sign an agreement that they will be responsible for the amount that the insurance company doesn't pay. The insurance company pays out of network providers according to "reasonable and customary" charges, which may be less than the provider's usual fee. The provider may also have a separate contract with the insurer to accept what amounts to a discounted rate or capitation to the provider's standard charges. It generally costs the patient less to use an in-network provider.

[edit] Health plan vs. health insurance

Historically, HMOs tended to use the term "health plan", while commercial insurance companies used the term "health insurance". A health plan can also refer to a subscription-based medical care arrangement offered through HMOs, preferred provider organizations, or point of service plans. These plans are similar to pre-paid dental, pre-paid legal, and pre-paid vision plans. Pre-paid health plans typically pay for a fixed number of services (for instance, $300 in preventive care, a certain number of days of hospice care or care in a skilled nursing facility, a fixed number of home health visits, a fixed number of spinal manipulation charges, etc.) The services offered are usually at the discretion of a utilization review nurse who is often contracted through the managed care entity providing the subscription health plan. This determination may be made either prior to or after hospital admission (concurrent utilization review).

[edit] Comprehensive vs. scheduled

Comprehensive health insurance pays a percentage of the cost of hospital and physician charges after a deductible (usually applies to hospital charges) or a co-pay (usually applies to physician charges, but may apply to some hospital services) is met by the insured. These plans are generally expensive because of the high potential benefit payout — $1,000,000 to 5,000,000 is common — and because of the vast array of covered benefits.^[10]

Scheduled health insurance plans are not meant to replace a traditional comprehensive health insurance plans and are more of a basic policy providing access to day-to-day health care such as going to the doctor or getting a prescription drug. In recent years, these plans have taken the name mini-med plans or association plans. These plans may provide benefits for hospitalization and surgical, but these benefits will be limited. Scheduled plans are not meant to be effective for catastrophic events. These plans cost much less than comprehensive health insurance. They generally pay limited benefits amounts directly to the service provider, and payments are based upon the plan's "schedule of benefits". Annual benefits maximums for a typical scheduled health insurance plan may range from $1,000 to $25,000.^[11]

[edit] Inherent problems with multiple insurance funds and optional insurance

The basic concept of insurance is population solidarity. There are inherent risks in a population but the population absorbs the cost of risks to an individual by spreading the impact of incurred costs amongst the insured population. However, if the population is split into insured and uninsured groups, or into selectively groups (as with private insurance with pre-insurance selection either by the insurance company or the insured) the concept of population solidarity breaks down. Insurance systems must then typically deal with two inherent challenges: adverse selection and ex-post moral hazard.

Some national systems with compulsory insurance utilize systems such as risk equalization and community rating to overcome these inherent problems. Proponents of single-payer health care in the United States aim to provide the population of the country with health care from a single fund and thus avoid problems and costs associated with adverse selection, moral hazard, and private profiteering from insurance.

[edit] Adverse selection

Insurance companies use the term "adverse selection" to describe the tendency for only those who will benefit from insurance to buy it. Specifically when talking about health insurance, unhealthy people are more likely to purchase health insurance because they anticipate large medical bills. On the other side, people who consider themselves to be reasonably healthy may decide that medical insurance is an unnecessary expense; if they see the doctor once a year and it costs $250, that's much better than making monthly insurance payments of $40. (example figures).

The fundamental concept of insurance is that it balances costs across a large, random sample of individuals (see risk pool). For instance, an insurance company has a pool of 1000 randomly selected subscribers, each paying $100 per month. One person becomes very ill while the others stay healthy, allowing the insurance company to use the money paid by the healthy people to pay for the treatment costs of the sick person. However, when the pool is self-selecting rather than random, as is the case with individuals seeking to purchase health insurance directly, adverse selection is a greater concern.^[12] A disproportionate share of health care spending is attributable to individuals with high health care costs. In the US the 1% of the population with the highest spending accounted for 27% of aggregate health care spending in 1996. The highest-spending 5% of the population accounted for more than half of all spending. These patterns were stable through the 1970s and 1980s, and some data suggest that they may have been typical of the mid-to-early 20th century as well.^[13]^[14] A few individuals have extremely high medical expenses, in extreme cases totaling a half million dollars or more.^[15] Adverse selection could leave an insurance company with primarily sick subscribers and no way to balance out the cost of their medical expenses with a large number of healthy subscribers.

Because of adverse selection, insurance companies employ medical underwriting, using a patient's medical history to screen out those whose pre-existing medical conditions pose too great a risk for the risk pool. Before buying health insurance, a person typically fills out a comprehensive medical history form that asks whether the person smokes, how much the person weighs, whether the person has been treated for any of a long list of diseases and so on. In general, those who present large financial burdens are denied coverage or charged high premiums to compensate.^[16] One large US industry survey found that roughly 13 percent of applicants for comprehensive, individually purchased health insurance who went through the medical underwriting in 2004 were denied coverage. Declination rates increased significantly with age, rising from 5 percent for individuals 18 and under to just under a third for individuals aged 60 to 64.^[17] Among those who were offered coverage, the study found that 76% received offers at standard premium rates, and 22% were offered higher rates.^[18] On the other side, applicants can get discounts if they do not smoke and are healthy.^[19]

[edit] Moral hazard

Main article: Moral hazard

Moral hazard occurs when an insurer and a consumer enter into a contract under symmetric information, but one party takes action, not taken into account in the contract, which changes the value of the insurance. A common example of moral hazard is third-party payment—when the parties involved in making a decision are not responsible for bearing costs arising from the decision. An example is where doctors and insured patients agree to extra tests which may or may not be necessary. Doctors benefit by avoiding possible malpractice suits, and patients benefit by gaining increased certainty of their medical condition. The cost of these extra tests is borne by the insurance company, which may have had little say in the decision. Co-payments, deductibles, and less generous insurance for services with more elastic demand attempt to combat moral hazard, as they hold the consumer responsible.

[edit] Other factors affecting insurance prices

A recent study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers examining the drivers of rising health care costs in the US pointed to increased utilization created by increased consumer demand, new treatments, and more intensive diagnostic testing, as the most significant driver.^[20] People in developed countries are living longer. The population of those countries is aging, and a larger group of senior citizens requires more intensive medical care than a young healthier population. Advances in medicine and medical technology can also increase the cost of medical treatment. Lifestyle-related factors can increase utilization and therefore insurance prices, such as: increases in obesity caused by insufficient exercise and unhealthy food choices; excessive alcohol use, smoking, and use of street drugs. Other factors noted by the PWC study included the movement to broader-access plans, higher-priced technologies, and cost-shifting from Medicaid and the uninsured to private payers.^[20]

[edit] Comparison

[edit] Australia

Main article: Health care in Australia

The public health system is called Medicare. It ensures free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidised out-of-hospital medical treatment. It is funded by a 1.5% tax levy.

The private health system is funded by a number of private health insurance organisations. The largest of these is Medibank Private, which is government-owned, but operates as a government business enterprise under the same regulatory regime as all other registered private health funds. The Coalition Howard government had announced that Medibank would be privatised if it won the 2007 election, however they were defeated by the Australian Labor Party under Kevin Rudd which had already pledged that it would remain in government ownership.

Some private health insurers are 'for profit' enterprises, and some are non-profit organizations such as HCF Health Insurance. Some have membership restricted to particular groups, but the majority have open membership.

Most aspects of private health insurance in Australia are regulated by the Private Health Insurance Act 2007.

The private health system in Australia operates on a "community rating" basis, whereby premiums do not vary solely because of a person's previous medical history, current state of health, or (generally speaking) their age (but see Lifetime Health Cover below). Balancing this are waiting periods, in particular for pre-existing conditions (usually referred to within the industry as PEA, which stands for "pre-existing ailment"). Funds are entitled to impose a waiting period of up to 12 months on benefits for any medical condition the signs and symptoms of which existed during the six months ending on the day the person first took out insurance. They are also entitled to impose a 12-month waiting period for benefits for treatment relating to an obstetric condition, and a 2-month waiting period for all other benefits when a person first takes out private insurance. Funds have the discretion to reduce or remove such waiting periods in individual cases. They are also free not to impose them to begin with, but this would place such a fund at risk of "adverse selection", attracting a disproportionate number of members from other funds, or from the pool of intending members who might otherwise have joined other funds. It would also attract people with existing medical conditions, who might not otherwise have taken out insurance at all because of the denial of benefits for 12 months due to the PEA Rule. The benefits paid out for these conditions would create pressure on premiums for all the fund's members, causing some to drop their membership, which would lead to further rises, and a vicious cycle would ensue.

There are a number of other matters about which funds are not permitted to discriminate between members in terms of premiums, benefits or membership - these include racial origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, nature of employment, and leisure activities. Premiums for a fund's product that is sold in more than one state can vary from state to state, but not within the same state.

The Australian government has introduced a number of incentives to encourage adults to take out private hospital insurance. These include:

Lifetime Health Cover: If a person has not taken out private hospital cover by the 1st July after their 30th birthday, then when (and if) they do so after this time, their premiums must include a loading of 2% per annum. Thus, a person taking out private cover for the first time at age 40 will pay a 20 per cent loading. The loading continues for 10 years. The loading applies only to premiums for hospital cover, not to ancillary (extras) cover.

Medicare Levy Surcharge: People whose taxable income is greater than a specified amount (currently $70,000 for singles and $140,000 for couples) and who do not have an adequate level of private hospital cover must pay a 1% surcharge on top of the standard 1.5% Medicare Levy. The rationale is that if the people in this income group are forced to pay more money one way or another, most would choose to purchase hospital insurance with it, with the possibility of a benefit in the event that they need private hospital treatment - rather than pay it in the form of extra tax as well as having to meet their own private hospital costs.
- The Australian government announced in May 2008 that it proposes to increase the thresholds, to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for families. These changes require legislative approval. A bill to change the law has been introduced but was not passed by the Senate.^[22] A changed version was passed on 16 October 2008. There have been criticisms that the changes will cause many people to drop their private health insurance, causing a further burden on the public hospital system, and a rise in premiums for those who stay with the private system. Other commentators believe the effect will be minimal.^[23]

Private Health Insurance Rebate: The government subsidises the premiums for all private health insurance cover, including hospital and ancillary (extras), by 30%, 35% or 40%.

[edit] Canada

Main article: Health care in Canada

Most health insurance in Canada is administered by each province, under the Canada Health Act, which requires all people to have free access to basic health services. Collectively, the public provincial health insurance systems in Canada are frequently referred to as Medicare. Private health insurance is allowed, but the provincial governments allow it only for services that the public health plans do not cover; for example, semi-private or private rooms in hospitals and prescription drug plans. Canadians are free to use private insurance for elective medical services such as laser vision correction surgery, cosmetic surgery, and other non-basic medical procedures. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.^[24] Private-sector services not paid for by the government account for nearly 30 percent of total health care spending.^[25]

In 2005, the Supreme Court of Quebec ruled, in Chaoulli v. Quebec, that the province's prohibition on private insurance for health care already insured by the provincial plan could constitute an infringement of the right to life and security if there were long wait times for treatment as happened in this case. Certain other provinces have legislation which financially discourages but does not forbid private health insurance in areas covered by the public plans. The ruling has not changed the overall pattern of health insurance across Canada but has spurred on attempts to tackle the core issues of supply and demand and the impact of wait times.^[26]

[edit] France

Main article: Health care in France

The French model of health insurance has been ranked by the World Health Organization as the best in the world, because it permits a high quality of care and nearly total patient freedom. The national system of health insurance was instituted in 1945, just after the end of the Second World War. It was a compromise between Gaullist and Communist representatives in the French parliament. The Conservative Gaullists were opposed to a state-run healthcare system, while the Communists were supportive of a complete nationalisation of health care along a British Beveridge model.

The resulting programme was profession-based : all people working were required to pay a portion of their income to a health insurance fund, which mutualised the risk of illness, and which reimbursed medical expenses at varying rates. Children and spouses of insured people were eligible for benefits, as well. Each fund was free to manage its own budget and reimburse medical expenses at the rate it saw fit.

The government has two responsibilities in this system.

The first government responsibility is the fixing of the rate at which medical expenses should be negotiated, and it does this in two ways: The Ministry of Health directly negotiates prices of medicine with the manufacturers, based on the average price of sale observed in neighboring countries. A board of doctors and experts decides if the medicine provides a valuable enough medical benefit to be reimbursed (note that most medicine is reimbursed, including homeopathy). In parallel, the government fixes the reimbursment rate for medical services : this means that a doctor is free to charge the fee that he wishes for a consultation or an examination, but the social security system will only reimburse it at a pre-set rate. These tariffs are set annually through negotiation with doctors' representative organisations.
The second government responsibility is oversight of the health-insurance funds, to ensure that they are correctly managing the sums they receive, and to ensure oversight of the public hospital network.

Today, this system is more-or-less intact. All citizens and legal foreign residents of France are covered by one of these mandatory programs, which continue to be funded by worker participation. However, since 1945, a number of major changes have been introduced. Firstly, the different health-care funds (there are five : General, Independent, Agricultural, Student, Public Servants) now all reimburse at the same rate. Secondly, since 2000, the government now provides health care to those who are not covered by a mandatory regime (those who have never worked and who are not students, meaning the very rich or the very poor). This regime, unlike the worker-financed ones, is financed via general taxation and reimburses at a higher rate than the profession-based system for those who cannot afford to make up the difference. Finally, to counter the rise in health-care costs, the government has installed two plans, (in 2004 and 2006), which require insured people to declare a referring doctor in order to be fully reimbursed for specalist visits, and which installed a mandatory co-pay of 1 € (about $1.45) for a doctor visit, 0,50 € (about 80 ¢) for each box of medicine prescribed, and a fee of 16-18 € (20-25 $) per day for hospital stays and for expensive procedures.

An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity : the more ill a person becomes, the less they pay. This means that for people with serious or chronic illnesses, the insurance system reimburses them 100 % of expenses, and waives their co-pay charges.

Finally, for fees that the mandatory system does not cover, there is a large range of private complementary insurance plans available. The market for these programs is very competitive, and often subsidised by the employer, which means that premiums are usually modest. 85% of French people benefit from complementary private health insurance.

^[27]^[28]

[edit] Netherlands

Main article: Health care in the Netherlands

In 2006, a new system of health insurance came into force in the Netherlands. This new system avoids the two pitfalls of adverse selection and moral hazard associated with traditional forms of health insurance by using a combination of regulation and an insurance equalization pool. Moral hazard is avoided by mandating that insurance companies provide at least one policy which meets a government set minimum standard level of coverage, and all adult residents are obliged by law to purchase this coverage from an insurance company of their choice. All insurance companies receive funds from the equalization pool to help cover the cost of this government-mandated coverage. This pool is run by a regulator which collects salary-based contributions from employers, which make up about 50% of all health care funding, and funding from the government to cover people who cannot afford health care, which makes up an additional 5%.

The remaining 45% of health care funding comes from insurance premiums paid by the public, for which companies compete on price, though the variation between the various competing insurers is only about 5%. However, insurance companies are free to sell additional policies to provide coverage beyond the national minimum. These policies do not receive funding from the equalization pool, but cover additional treatments, such as dental procedures and physiotherapy, which are not paid for by the mandatory policy.

Funding from the equalization pool is distributed to insurance companies for each person they insure under the required policy. However, high-risk individuals get more from the pool, and low-income persons and children under 18 have their insurance paid for entirely. Because of this, insurance companies no longer find insuring high risk individuals an unappealing proposition, avoiding the potential problem of adverse selection.

Insurance companies are not allowed to have co-payments, caps, or deductibles, or to deny coverage to any person applying for a policy, or to charge anything other than their nationally set and published standard premiums. Therefore, every person buying insurance will pay the same price as everyone else buying the same policy, and every person will get at least the minimum level of coverage.

[edit] United Kingdom

Main article: National Health Service

The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a publicly funded healthcare system that provides coverage to everyone normally resident in the UK. It is not strictly an insurance system because (a) there are no premiums collected, (b) costs are not charged at the patient level and (c) costs are not pre-paid from a pool. However, it does achieve the main aim of insurance which is to spread financial risk arising from ill-health. The costs of running the NHS (est. £104 billion in 2007-8)^[29] are met directly from general taxation. The NHS provides the majority of health care in the UK, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term health care, ophthalmology and dentistry.

Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population, and generally as a top-up to NHS services. There are many treatments that the private sector does not provide. For example, health insurance on pregnancy is generally not covered or covered with restricting clauses.^[30] One of the major insurers, BUPA, excludes many forms of treatment and care that most people will need during their lifetime or specialist care most of which are freely available from the NHS. These include:-

ageing, menopause and puberty; AIDS/HIV; allergies or allergic disorders; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; chronic conditions; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care ; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment; deafness; dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc); dialysis; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use† ; experimental drugs and treatment; eyesight; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems; overseas treatment and repatriation; physical aids and devices; pre-existing or special conditions; pregnancy and childbirth; screening and preventive treatment; sleep problems and disorders; speech disorders; temporary relief of symptoms^[31] († = except in exceptional circumstances)

BUPA's competitors include, among others, AXA, Aviva, Groupama Healthcare and Pru Health.

Recently the private sector has been used to increase NHS capacity despite a large proportion of the British public opposing such involvement.^[32]. According to the World Health Organization, government funding covered 86% of overall health care expenditures in the UK as of 2004, with private expenditures covering the remaining 14%.^[33]

[edit] United States

Main articles: Health insurance in the United States and Health care in the United States

The US market-based health care system relies heavily on private and not-for-profit health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. According to the United States Census Bureau, approximately 84% of Americans have health insurance; some 60% obtain it through an employer, while about 9% purchase it directly. Various government agencies provide coverage to about 27% of Americans (there is some overlap in these figures).^[34]

Public programs provide the primary source of coverage for most seniors and for low-income children and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. The primary public programs are Medicare, a federal social insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals, Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states but administered at the state level, which covers certain very low income children and their families, and SCHIP, also a federal-state partnership that serves certain children and families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private coverage. Other public programs include military health benefits provided through TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration and benefits provided through the Indian Health Service. Some states have additional programs for low-income individuals.^[35]

In 2006, there were 47 million people in the United States (16% of the population) who were without health insurance for at least part of that year.^[34] About 37% of the uninsured live in households with an income over $50,000.^[34]

In 2004, US health insurers directly employed almost 470,000 people at an average salary of $61,409.^[36] (As of the fourth quarter of 2007, the total US labor force stood at 153.6 million, of whom 146.3 million were employed. Employment related to all forms of insurance totaled 2.3 million.^[37] Mean annual earnings for full-time civilian workers as of June 2006 were $41,231; median earnings were $33,634.)^[38] The insurance industry also represents a significant lobbying group in the US. For 2008 insurance was the 8th among industries in political contributions to members of Congress, giving $28,654,121, of which 51% was given to Democrats and 49% to Republicans, with the top recipient of insurance industry contributions being Senator John McCain (R-AZ).^[39] The leading contributor from the insurance industry — as measured by total political contributions — was AFLAC, Inc., which contributed $907,150 in 2007.^[40].

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes and references

^ How Private Insurance Works: A Primer by Gary Claxton, Institution for Health Care Research and Policy, Georgetown University, on behalf of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation
^ Howstuffworks: How Health Insurance Works Encarta: Health Insurance
^ See California Insurance Code Section 106 (defining disability insurance).[1] In 2001, the California Legislature added subdivision (b), which defines "health insurance" as "an individual or group disability insurance policy that provides coverage for hospital, medical, or surgical benefits."
^ ^a ^b Fundamentals of Health Insurance: Part A, Health Insurance Association of America, 1997, ISBN 1-879143-36-4
^ Thomas P. O'Hare, "Individual Medical Expense Insurance," The American College, 2000, page 7, ISBN 1-57996-025-1
^ Managed Care: Integrating the Delivery and Financing of Health Care - Part A, Health Insurance Association of America, 1995, page 9 ISBN 1-879143-26-1
^ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). "Questions and Answers About Health Insurance: A Consumer Guide." August 2007.
^ http://www.brainypatient.com/HealthInsPriorAuth.html
^ http://www.brainypatient.com/HealthInsReadingEOB.html
^ "Comprehensive Health Insurance vs. Scheduled Health Insurance"
^ "Mini Medical Plans On The Move"
^ "Wading Through Medical Insurance Pools: A Primer," American Academy of Actuaries September 2006 http://www.actuary.org/pdf/health/pools_sep06.pdf
^ Marc L. Berk and Alan C. Monheit, "The Concentration Of Health Care Expenditures, Revisited", Health Affairs, Volume 20, Number 2, March/April 2001. Accessed February 27, 2008.
^ Marc L. Berk and Alan C. Monheit, "Datawatch: The Concentration Of Health Expenditures: An Update", Health Affairs, Winter 1992. Accessed February 27, 2008.
^ "1997–1999 Group Medical Insurance Database and Analysis Report," Society of Actuaries, 2004
^ "The Bottom Line on Risk Classification in Individually Purchased Voluntary Medical Expense Insurance," American Academy of Actuaries, February 1999
^ Teresa Chovan, Hannah Yoo and Tom Wildsmith,"Individual Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Survey of Affordability, Access, and Benefits" America’s Health Insurance Plans, August 2005.
^ Teresa Chovan, Hannah Yoo and Tom Wildsmith,Individual Health Insurance: A Comprehensive Survey of Affordability, Access, and Benefits, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Table 7, page 11 (Note that the remainder, roughly 2%, received other types of offers, such as policies with condition waivers).
^ Task Force on Genetic Testing in Health Insurance,"Risk Classification in Individually Purchased Voluntary Medical Expense Insurance," American Academy of Actuaries, February 1999
^ ^a ^b The Factors Fueling Rising Healthcare Costs 2006, PriceWaterhouseCoopers for America's Health Insurance Plans, 2006, accessed 2007-10-08
^ "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care". The Commonwealth Fund. May 15, 2007. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2007/May/Mirror--Mirror-on-the-Wall--An-International-Update-on-the-Comparative-Performance-of-American-Healt.aspx. Retrieved on March 7, 2009.
^ [2], [3]
^ [4]
^ Private Health Insurance in OECD Countries. OECD Health Project. 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=oUM39nDp2s4C&dq=employer+provided+private+health+insurance+in+canada. Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
^ "National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975-2007". Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2007-11-13. http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=PG_876_E&cw_topic=876&cw_rel=AR_31_E. Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
^ Hadorn, D. (2005-08-02). "The Chaoulli challenge: getting a grip on waiting lists". Canadian Medical Association Journal 173: 271. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050812. PMID 16076823. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/3/271?etoc.
^ "L'assurance maladie"
^ John S. Ambler, "The French Welfare State : surving social and ideological change," New York University Press, 30 Sept 1993, ISBN 978-0814706268
^ HM Treasury (2007-03-21). "Budget 2007" (PDF). 21. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/3/4/bud07_completereport_1757.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-05-11.
^ "Bupa, AXA, Pru Health and Aviva (Norwich Union) Health Insurance on Pregnancy". NCD News. http://www.noclaimsdiscount.co.uk/news/art_display.php?show=200901172. Retrieved on 2009-02-13.
^ http://www.bupa.co.uk/heartbeat/html/not_covered.html BUPA exclusions
^ "Survey of the general public's views on NHS system reform in England" (PDF). 2007-06-01. http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFnhssystreform2007/$FILE/48751Surveynhsreform.pdf.
^ World Health Organization Statistical Information System: Core Health Indicators
^ ^a ^b ^c "Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006." U.S. Census Bureau. Issued August 2007.
^ U.S. Census Bureau,"CPS Health Insurance Definitions"
^ "Health Insurance: Overview and Economic Impact in the States," America’s Health Insurance Plans, November 2007
^ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,"THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: JANUARY 2008," February 1, 2008
^ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,"National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States, June 2006," June 2007
^ The Center for Responsive Politics, Top Industries Giving to Members of Congress: 2008 Cycle, accessed January 4th, 2009
^ Health Insurance.org, "Health Care and Insurance Dominate the Washington Lobby," April 2008

Origins of Formal Marine Insurance

2009-03-07T07:42:00.000-08:00

Marine Insurance covers the loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport or property by which cargo is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and final destination.

Cargo insurance--discussed here--is a sub-branch of marine insurance, though Marine also includes Onshore and Offshore exposed property (container terminals, ports, oil platforms, pipelines); Hull; Marine Casualty; and Marine Liability.

[hide]

[edit] Origins of Formal Marine Insurance

The modern origins of marine insurance law were in the law merchant, with the establishment in England in 1601 of a specialised chamber of assurance separate from the other Courts. Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice in the mid-eighteenth century, began the merging of law merchant and common law principles. The establishment of Lloyd's of London, competitor insurance companies, a developing infrastructure of specialists (such as shipbrokers, admiralty lawyers, and bankers), and the growth of the British Empire gave English law a prominence in this area which it largely maintains and forms the basis of almost all modern practice. The growth of the London insurance market led to the standardisation of policies and judicial precedent further developed marine insurance law. In 1906 the Marine Insurance Act was passed which codified the previous common law; it is both an extremely thorough and concise piece of work. Although the title of the Act refers to marine insurance, the general principles have been applied to all non-life insurance.

Within the overall guidance of the Marine Insurance Act and the Institute Clauses parties retain a considerable freedom to contract between themselves.

[edit] Practice

The Marine Insurance Act includes, as a schedule, a standard policy (known as the 'SG form'), which parties were at liberty to use if they wished. Because each term in the policy had been tested through at least two centuries of judicial precedent, the policy was extremely thorough. However, it was also expressed in rather archaic terms. In 1991, the London market produced a new standard policy wording known as the MAR 91 form and using the Institute Clauses. The MAR form is simply a general statement of insurance; the Institute Clauses are used to set out the detail of the insurance cover. In practice, the policy document usually consists of the MAR form used as a cover, with the Clauses stapled to the inside. Typically each clause will be stamped, with the stamp overlapping both onto the inside cover and to other clauses; this practice is used to avoid the substitution or removal of clauses.

Because marine insurance is typically underwritten on a subscription basis, the MAR form begins: We, the Underwriters, agree to bind ourselves each for his own part and not one for another [...]. In legal terms, liability under the policy is several and not joint; ie. The underwriters are all liable together, but only for their share or proportion of the risk. If one underwriter should default, the remainder are not liable to pick his share of the claim.

Cover may be on either a 'voyage' or 'time' basis. The 'voyage' basis covers transit between the ports set out in the policy; the 'time' basis covers a period of time, typically one year, and is more common.

[edit] Protection and indemnity

A marine policy typically covered only three-quarter of the insured's liabilities towards third parties. The typical liabilities arise in respect of collision with another ship, known as 'running down' (collision with a fixed object is an 'allision'), and wreck removal (a wreck may serve to block a harbour, for example).

In the 19th century, shipowners banded together in mutual underwriting clubs known as Protection and Indemnity Clubs (P&I), to insure the remaining one-quarter liability amongst themselves. These Clubs are still in existence today and have become the model for other specialised and uncommercial marine and non-marine mutuals, for example in relation to oil pollution and nuclear risks.

Because liability regimes vary throughout the world, insurers are usually careful to limit or exclude American Jones Act liability.

[edit] Actual Total Loss and Constructive Total Loss

These two terms are used to differentiate the degree of proof where a vessel or cargo has been lost.

An Actual Total Loss refers to the situation where the position is clear and a Constructive Total Loss refers to the situation where a loss is inferred. In practice, a Constructive Total Loss might also be used to describe a loss where the cost of repair is not economic; ie a 'write-off'.

[edit] Average

The term 'Average' has two meanings:

(1) In marine insurance, in the case of a partial loss, or emergency repairs to the vessel, average may be declared. This covers situations, where, for example, a ship in a storm might have to jettison certain cargo to protect the ship and the remaining cargo. 'General Average' requires all parties concerned in the venture (Hull/Cargo/Freight/Bunkers) to contribute to compensate the losses caused to those whose cargo has been lost or damaged. 'Particular Average' is levied on a group of cargo owners and not all of the cargo owners.

(2) In the situation where an insured has under-insured, ie. insured an item for less than it is worth, average will apply to reduce the amount payable. There are different ways of calculating average, but generally the same proportion of under-insurance will be applied to any payout due.

An average adjuster is a marine claims specialist responsible for adjusting and providing the general average statement. He is usually appointed by the shipowner or insurer.

[edit] Excess, Deductible, Retention, Co-Insurance, and Franchise

An Excess is the amount payable by the insured and is usually expressed as the first amount falling due, up to a ceiling, in the event of a loss. An excess may or may not be applied. It may be expressed in either monetary or percentage terms. An excess is typically used to discourage moral hazard and to remove small claims, which are disproportionately expensive to handle. The equivalent term to 'excess' in marine insurance is 'deductible' or 'retention'.

A co-insurance, which is typically applied in non-proportional treaty reinsurance, is an excess expressed as a proportion of a claim, e.g. 5%, and applied to the entirety of a claim.

A franchise is a deductible below which nothing is payable and beyond which the entire amount of the sum insured is payable. It is typically used in reinsurance arbitrage arrangements.

[edit] Tonners and Chinamen

These are both obsolete forms of early reinsurance. Both are technically unlawful, as not having insurable interest, and so were unenforceable in law. Policies were typically marked P.P.I. (Policy is Proof of Interest). Their use continued into the 1970s before they were banned by Lloyd's, the main market, by which time, they had become nothing more than crude bets.

A 'tonner' was simply a 'policy' setting out the global gross tonnage loss for a year. If that loss was reached or exceeded, the policy paid out. A 'chinaman' applied the same principle but in reverse: thus, if the limit was not reached, the policy paid out.

[edit] Specialist Policies

Various types of specialist policy exist, including:

Newbuilding risks: This covers the risk of damage to the hull whilst it is under construction.

Yacht Insurance: Insurance of pleasure craft is generally known as 'yacht insurance' and includes liability coverage. Smaller vessels, such as yachts and fishing vessels, are typically underwritten on a 'binding authority' or 'lineslip' basis.

War risks: Usual Hull insurance does not cover the risks of a vessel sailing into a war zone. A typical example is the risk to a tanker sailing in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War. War risks cover protects, at an additional premium, against the danger of loss in a war zone. The war risks areas are established by the London-based Joint War Committee, which has recently moved to include the Malacca Straits as a war risks area due to piracy [1]. If an attack is classified as a "riot" then it would be covered by war risk insurers^[1].

Increased Value (IV): Increased Value cover protects the shipowner against any difference between the insured value of the vessel and the market value of the vessel.

Overdue insurance: This is a form of insurance now largely obsolete due to advances in communications. It was an early form of reinsurance and was bought by an insurer when a ship was late at arriving at her destination port and there was a risk that she might have been lost (but, equally, might simply have been delayed). The overdue insurance of the Titanic was famously underwritten on the doorstep of Lloyd's.

Cargo insurance: Cargo insurance is underwritten on the Institute Cargo Clauses, with coverage on an A, B, or C basis, A having the widest cover and C the most restricted. Valuable cargo is known as specie.

Links: Description of cover: [2]

Institute Cargo Clauses: [3]

Pleasurecraft & Commercial marine policy summaries: [4]

[edit] Warranties and Conditions

A peculiarity of marine insurance, and insurance law generally, is the use of the terms condition and warranty. In English law, a condition typically describes a part of the contract that is fundamental to the performance of that contract, and, if breached, breaches the contract as a whole. By contrast, a warranty is not fundamental to the performance of the contract and breach of a warranty will not lead to a breach of the contract. The meaning of these terms is reversed in insurance law. Thus, the Marine Insurance Act 1906 refers to implied warranties, one of the most important of which is that the vessel is seaworthy.^[2]

[edit] Salvage and Prizes

The term 'salvage' refers to the practice of rendering aid to a vessel in distress. Apart from the consideration that the sea is traditionally 'a place of safety', with sailors honour-bound to render assistance as required, it is obviously in underwriters' interests to encourage assistance to vessels in danger of being wrecked. A policy will usually include a 'sue and labour' clause which will cover the reasonable costs incurred by a shipowner in his avoiding a greater loss.

At sea, a ship in distress will typically agree to 'Lloyd's Open Form' with any potential salvor. The Lloyd's Open Form is the standard contract, although other forms exist. The Lloyd's Open Form is headed 'No cure - no pay'; the intention being that if the attempted salvage is unsuccessful, no award will be made. However, this principle has been weakened in recent years, and awards are now permitted in cases where, although the ship might have sunk, pollution has been avoided or mitigated. In other circumstances the "salvor" may envoke the SCOPIC terms (most recent and commonly used rendition is SCOPIC 2000) in contrast to the LOF (Lloyd's Open Form) these terms mean that the salvor will be paid even if the salvage attempt is unsuccessful. The amount the salvor receives is limited to cover the costs of the salavage attempt only. One of the main negative factors in envoking SCOPIC (on the salvors behalf) is if the salvage attempt is successful the amount at which the salvor can claim under article 13 of LOF is discounted.

A ship captured in war is referred to as a prize, and the captors entitled to prize money. Again this risk is covered by standard policies.

[edit] Marine Insurance Act, 1906

Main article: Marine Insurance Act 1906

The most important sections of this Act include:

s.4: a policy without insurable interest is void.

s.17: imposes a duty on the insured of uberrimae fides (as opposed to caveat emptor); ie. that questions must be answered honestly and the risk not misrepresented.

s.18: the proposer of the insurer has a duty to disclose all material facts relevant to the acceptance and rating of the risk. Failure to do so is known as non-disclosure or concealment (there are minor differences in the two terms) and renders the insurance voidable by the insurer.

s.33(3): If [a warranty] be not [exactly] complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date.

s.34(2): where a warranty has been broken, it is no defence to the insured that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, prior to the loss.

s.34(3): a breach of warranty may be waived (ie. ignored) by the insurer.

s.39(1): implied warranty that the vessel must be seaworthy at the start of her voyage and for the purpose of it (voyage policy only).

s.39(5): no warranty that a vessel shall be seaworthy during the policy period (time policy). However if the assured knowingly allows an unseaworthy vessel to set sail the insurer is not liable for losses caused by unseasworthiness.

s.50: a policy may be assigned. Typically, a shipowner might assign the benefit of a policy to the ship-mortgagor.

ss.60-63: deals with the issues of a constructive total loss. The insured can, by notice, claim for a constructive total loss with the insurer becoming entitled to the ship or cargo if it should later turn up. (By contrast an actual total loss describes the physical destruction of a vessel or cargo.)

s.79: deals with subrogation; ie. the rights of the insurer to stand in the shoes of an indemnified insured and recover salvage for his own benefit.

Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of definitions; schedule 2 contains the model policy wording.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

UK case relating to legal definitions (The No. 1 Dae Bu)

[edit] References

^ "Piracy Insurance: how are these numerous hostage situations affecting UK insurance?". NCD News. http://www.noclaimsdiscount.co.uk/news/art_display.php?show=200901191. Retrieved on 2009-02-05.
^ see also: Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd. ('The Good Luck') [1991] 2 WLR 1279 and at 1294-5

[edit] Bibliography

Birds, J. Birds' Modern Insurance Law. Sweet & Maxwell, 2004. (ISBN 0-421-87800-2)

Donaldson, Ellis, Wilson (Editor), Cooke (Editor), Lowndes and Rudolf: Law of General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules. Sweet & Maxwell, 1990. (ISBN 0-420-46930-3)

Wilson, DJ, Donaldson (1997). Lowndes and Rudolf: General Average and the York-Antwerp Rules. British Shipping Law Library: Sweet & Maxwell. ISBN 0-421-56450-4.

AdjiE Propeller - Fin Propeller

2007-09-30T13:49:00.000-07:00

Fin Propeller is screw propeller which have been modified by enhancing two fin on each of back of propeller blade. Its purpose is to improve thrust power by the propeller performance. According to blade element and propeller momentum theory, adding of the fin could increase the fluid flow Va at the back of propeller blade so the pressure goes down. So theoretically, Fin propeller can produce thrust bigger than original screw propeller. Hence, the ship running faster. The basic function of this propeller is the ship’s owners can speed up their ship without changing the engine.

This propeller created by lecture of Marine Engineering Sepuluh Nopember Institute of Technology – Surabaya, Indonesia.
Together with his students, execute his first experiment in year 2004. The experiment result prove that using the fin propeller make the ship run up to 20% faster than using original screw propeller. However, this adding of the fins cause the fuel oil consumption of the ship increase because of propeller load. Because of that case, this research still being developed mathematically and computerized.

Blade Element Theory
Forces that happened at foil yielded by fluid flow phenomenon that is changing of kinetic energy and momentum. At foil, the velocity of fluid flow on backside is faster than on faceside. According to law of bernoully, that will cause pressure on face go up and pressure on back go down so that lift of force happened.

To Fin propeller, adding of fin will cause increasing fluid flow Va on backside so the pressure goes down.

Propeller Momentum Theory
According to this theory, thrust yielded by working of propeller in water caused by the existing of difference of momentum so propeller efficiency depend on blade loading. This drawing below show that a propeller moving forward in water where the water moveless.

So force reaction generated by the propeller to the fluid or Thrust (T) is proportion with increasing of the pressure (P) multiplied by surface of propeller discus (Ao):
T = P. Ao
P = P1 – P2
Where,
P1 = Pressure on face side
P2 = Pressure on back side

In Fin propeller, the pressure on backside (P1) goes down so the pressure difference between face and back (P’) increase.
P’ = P1-P’2

So
T’ = P’. Ao

And,
T’ > T

P’2 = Pressure on back side have decreased.
T’ = Thrust at Fin propeller

Summary,

Fin Propeller produce Thrust higher than Original Propeller.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.007-07:00

Marine Insurance Knowledge

Marine Insurance covers the loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport or property by which cargo is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and final destination.
Cargo insurance--discussed here--is a sub-branch of marine insurance, though Marine also includes Onshore and Offshore exposed property (container terminals, ports, oil platforms, pipelines); Hull; Marine Casualty; and Marine Liability.

Origins of Formal Marine Insurance
The modern origins of marine insurance law were in the law merchant, with the establishment in England in 1601 of a specialised chamber of assurance separate from the other Courts. Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice in the mid-eighteenth century, began the merging of law merchant and common law principles. The establishment of Lloyd's of London, competitor insurance companies, a developing infrastructure of specialists (such as shipbrokers, admiralty lawyers, and bankers), and the growth of the British Empire gave English law a prominence in this area which it largely maintains and forms the basis of almost all modern practice. The growth of the London insurance market led to the standardisation of policies and judicial precedent further developed marine insurance law. In 1906 the Marine Insurance Act was passed which codified the previous common law; it is both an extremely thorough and concise piece of work. Although the title of the Act refers to marine insurance, the general principles have been applied to all non-life insurance.

In the 19th. century, Lloyd's and the Institute of London Underwriters (a grouping of London company insurers) developed between them standardised clauses for the use of marine insurance, and these have been maintained since. These are known as the Institute Clauses because the Institute covered the cost of their publication.
Within the overall guidance of the Marine Insurance Act and the Institute Clauses parties retain a considerable freedom to contract between themselves.

Marine insurance is the oldest type of insurance. Out of it grew non-marine insurance and reinsurance. It traditionally formed the majority of business underwritten at Lloyd's. Nowadays, Marine insurance is often grouped with Aviation and Transit (ie. cargo) risks, and in this form is known by the acronym 'MAT'.

Practice
The Marine Insurance Act includes, as a schedule, a standard policy (known as the 'SG form'), which parties were at liberty to use if they wished. Because each term in the policy had been tested through at least two centuries of judicial precedent, the policy was extremely thorough. However, it was also expressed in rather archaic terms. In 1991, the London market produced a new standard policy wording known as the MAR 91 form and using the Institute Clauses. The MAR form is simply a general statement of insurance; the Institute Clauses are used to set out the detail of the insurance cover. In practice, the policy document usually consists of the MAR form used as a cover, with the Clauses stapled to the inside. Typically each clause will be stamped, with the stamp overlapping both onto the inside cover and to other clauses; this practice is used to avoid the substitution or removal of clauses.

Because marine insurance is typically underwritten on a subscription basis, the MAR form begins: We, the Underwriters, agree to bind ourselves each for his own part and not one for another [...]. In legal terms, liability under the policy is several and not joint; ie. The underwriters are all liable together, but only for their share or proportion of the risk. If one underwriter should default, the remainder are not liable to pick his share of the claim.

Typically, marine insurance is split between the vessels and the cargo. Insurance of the vessels is generally known as 'Hull and Machinery' (H&M). A more restricted form of cover is 'Total Loss Only' (TLO), generally used as a reinsurance, which only covers the total loss of the vessel and not any partial loss.
Cover may be on either a 'voyage' or 'time' basis. The 'voyage' basis covers transit between the ports set out in the policy; the 'time' basis covers a period of time, typically one year, and is more common.

Protection and indemnity
A marine policy typically covered only three-quarter of the insured's liabilities towards third parties. The typical liabilities arise in respect of collision with another ship, known as 'running down' (collision with a fixed object is an 'allision'), and wreck removal (a wreck may serve to block a harbour, for example).

Clubs work on the basis of agreeing to accept a shipowner as a member and levying an initial 'call' (premium). With the fund accumulated, reinsurance will be purchased; however, if the loss experience is unfavourable one or more 'supplementary calls' may be made. Clubs also typically try to build up reserves, but this puts them at odds with their mutual status.
Because liability regimes vary throughout the world, insurers are usually careful to limit or exclude American Jones Act liability.

Actual Total Loss and Constructive Total Loss
These two terms are used to differentiate the degree of proof where a vessel or cargo has been lost.
An Actual Total Loss refers to the situation where the position is clear and a Constructive Total Loss refers to the situation where a loss is inferred. In practice, a Constructive Total Loss might also be used to describe a loss where the cost of repair is not economic; ie a 'write-off'.

The different terms refer to the difficulties of proving a loss where there might be no evidence of such a loss. In this respect, marine insurance differs from non-marine insurance, where the insured is required to prove his loss. Traditionally, in law, marine insurance was seen as an insurance of 'the adventure', with insurers having a stake and an interest in the vessel and/ or the cargo rather than, simply, an interest in the financial consequences of the subject-matter's survival.

Average
The term 'Average' has two meanings:
(1) In marine insurance, in the case of a partial loss, or emergency repairs to the vessel, average may be declared. This covers situations, where, for example, a ship in a storm might have to jettison certain cargo to protect the ship and the remaining cargo. 'General Average' requires all cargo owners to contribute to compensate the losses caused to those whose cargo has been lost or damaged. 'Particular Average' is levied on a group of cargo owners and not all of the cargo owners.
(2) In the situation where an insured has under-insured, ie. insured an item for less than it is worth, average will apply to reduce the amount payable. There are different ways of calculating average, but generally the same proportion of under-insurance will be applied to any payout due.
An average adjuster is a marine claims specialist responsible for adjusting and providing the general average statement. He is usually appointed by the shipowner or insurer.

Excess, Deductible, Retention, Co-Insurance, and Franchise
An Excess is the amount payable by the insured and is usually expressed as the first amount falling due, up to a ceiling, in the event of a loss. An excess may or may not be applied. It may be expressed in either monetary or percentage terms. An excess is typically used to discourage moral hazard and to remove small claims, which are disproportionately expensive to handle. The equivalent term to 'excess' in marine insurance is 'deductible' or 'retention'.

A co-insurance, which is typically applied in non-proportional treaty reinsurance, is an excess expressed as a proportion of a claim, e.g. 5%, and applied to the entirety of a claim.
A franchise is a deductible below which nothing is payable and beyond which the entire amount of the sum insured is payable. It is typically used in reinsurance arbitrage arrangements.

Tonners and Chinamen
These are both obsolete forms of early reinsurance. Both are technically unlawful, as not having insurable interest, and so were unenforceable in law. Policies were typically marked P.P.I. (Policy is Proof of Interest). Their use continued into the 1970s before they were banned by Lloyd's, the main market, by which time, they had become nothing more than crude bets.
A 'tonner' was simply a 'policy' setting out the global gross tonnage loss for a year. If that loss was reached or exceeded, the policy paid out. A 'chinamen' applied the same principle but in reverse: thus, if the limit was not reached, the policy paid in

Specialist Policies
Various types of specialist policy exist, including:
Newbuilding risks: This covers the risk of damage to the hull whilst it is under construction.

Yacht Insurance: Insurance of pleasure craft is generally known as 'yacht insurance' and includes liability coverage. Smaller vessels, such as yachts and fishing vessels, are typically underwritten on a 'binding authority' or 'lineslip' basis.

War risks: Usual Hull insurance does not cover the risks of a vessel sailing into a war zone. A typical example is the risk to a tanker sailing in the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War. War risks cover protects, at an additional premium, against the danger of loss in a war zone. The war risks areas are established by the London-based Joint War Committee, which has recently moved to include the Malacca Straits as a war risks area due to piracy [1].

Increased Value (IV): Increased Value cover protects the shipowner against any difference between the insured value of the vessel and the market value of the vessel.

Overdue insurance: This is a form of insurance now largely obsolete due to advances in communications. It was an early form of reinsurance and was bought by an insurer when a ship was late at arriving at her destination port and there was a risk that she might have been lost (but, equally, might simply have been delayed). The overdue insurance of the Titanic was famously underwritten on the doorstep of Lloyd's.

Cargo insurance: Cargo insurance is underwritten on the Institute Cargo Clauses, with coverage on an A, B, or C basis, A having the widest cover and C the most restricted. Valuable cargo is known as specie.

Warranties and Conditions
A peculiarity of marine insurance, and insurance law generally, is the use of the terms condition and warranty. In English law, a condition typically describes a part of the contract that is fundamental to the performance of that contract, and, if breached, breaches the contract as a whole. By contrast, a warranty is not fundamental to the performance of the contract and breach of a warranty will not lead to a breach of the contract. The meaning of these terms is reversed in insurance law. Thus, the Marine Insurance Act 1906 refers to implied warranties, one of the most important of which is that the vessel is seaworthy.[1]

Salvage and Prizes
The term 'salvage' refers to the practice of rendering aid to a vessel in distress. Apart from the consideration that the sea is traditionally 'a place of safety', with sailors honour-bound to render assistance as required, it is obviously in underwriters' interests to encourage assistance to vessels in danger of being wrecked. A policy will usually include a 'sue and labour' clause which will cover the reasonable costs incurred by a shipowner in his avoiding a greater loss.

The Lloyd's Open Form, once agreed, allows salvage attempts to begin immediately. The extent of any award is determined later; although the standard wording refers to the Chairman of Lloyd's arbitrating any award, in practice the role of arbitrator is passed to specialist admiralty QCs.
A ship captured in war is referred to as a prize, and the captors entitled to prize money. Again this risk is covered by standard policies.

Marine Insurance Act, 1906
The most important sections of this Act include:
s.4: a policy without insurable interest is void.
s.17: imposes a duty on the insured of uberrimae fides (as opposed to caveat emptor); ie. that questions must be answered honestly and the risk not misrepresented.
s.18: the proposer of the insurer has a duty to disclose all material facts relevant to the acceptance and rating of the risk. Failure to do so is known as non-disclosure or concealment (there are minor differences in the two terms) and renders the insurance voidable by the insurer.
s.33(3): If [a warranty] be not [exactly] complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date.
s.34(2): where a warranty has been broken, it is no defence to the insured that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, prior to the loss.
s.34(3): a breach of warranty may be waived (ie. ignored) by the insurer.
s.50: a policy may be assigned. Typically, a shipowner might assign the benefit of a policy to the ship-mortgagor.
ss.60-63: deals with the issues of a constructive total loss. The insured can, by notice, claim for a constructive total loss with the insurer becoming entitled to the ship or cargo if it should later turn up. (By contrast an actual total loss describes the physical destruction of a vessel or cargo.)
s.79: deals with subrogation; ie. the rights of the insurer to stand in the shoes of an indemnified insured and recover salvage for his own benefit.
Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of definitions; schedule 2 contains the model policy wording

2007-09-19T11:39:00.006-07:00

Double Insurance
By Roger Miles of Elborne MitchellFirst published: Maritime Risk International - Vol 18 - Issue 4 [4th April 2004]

Roger Miles, Master Mariner and partner in the shipping and marine insurance department of City firm Elborne Mitchell, reviews a recent hull and machinery dispute in which he acted and considers some of its implications.

Double insurance causes practical and legal problems. It is expensive and can lead to delays in receiving payment from insurers. As policies begin to include several co-assureds, owners and operators may increasingly find themselves over insured by double insurance on hull. English law now offers some practical guidance as to what to do in those circumstances.
Double insurance exists where there are two or more policies on the same adventure and interest or any part of it, and the sums insured exceed the insurable value in the case of an unvalued policy or the value fixed by the policy in the case of a valued policy.
If there is double insurance then unless the policy says otherwise payment may be claimed from the insurers in any order. However despite paying two (or more) lots of premium the assured cannot recover more than the greatest insured value and must give credit for any sum received by him under any other policy. If he happens to be paid more, he is deemed to hold any excess in trust for the insurers.

Normally of course you would not knowingly insure the same risk twice. But double insurance is in fact quite common in many sectors of the insurance market; for example, cargoes are often sold several times during a voyage and each new owner may insure it as a precaution against its loss. You might think double insurance on hull and machinery was impossible. Not so, as the English High Court's decision in Chris O'Kane and Others v Jonathan Jones and Others [2003] shows.

In the spring of 1999 the sole director of the owners of the vessel "MARTIN P", and of her then managers, decided to transfer management of the vessel to new managers with whom he entered into a management agreement. On renewal of the vessel's hull and machinery policy with the first insurer (O'Kane) from 1st July 1999, the named assureds were the owners, the former managers, described as "operators", and the new managers described as "sub- managers/co-assureds". The insured value of the vessel under this policy was US$5 million.

The policy documents included a warranty from the assureds' brokers to the underwriter that the premium had been paid. However, no premium was paid, so in mid-November the brokers, without informing O'Kane, wrote to the mortgagee bank, with copies to the assureds, advising that unless the premium outstanding was paid by the end of the month they might be unable to continue their warranty. There was still no payment. The new managers insisted that owners pay the premium whilst the owners wanted the new managers to pay it.

The new managers assumed that the policy with O'Kane had been cancelled because of non-payment of premium. In mid-December, having told the owners of their intentions, the new managers took out hull and machinery insurance on the vessel with the second insurers (Jones). The named assureds in this second policy were the new managers "and/or affiliated and/or associated companies for their respective rights and interests". The insured value of the vessel under this policy was US$2.5 million.

In late December 1999 the "MARTIN P" became a constructive total loss. At the time of the loss both policies of insurance were in place. However, O'Kane was unaware of the Jones policy. Within a few days of the loss, when the assureds realised that the policy issued by O'Kane had not been cancelled, they agreed with Jones to cancel the second policy. An endorsement to the policy reading "it is hereby noted and agreed that this insurance is cancelled with effect from inception" was issued. The outstanding premium on the O'Kane policy was paid and a claim made against that policy for US$5 million.

O'Kane became aware of the Jones policy. After investigating the loss, O'Kane agreed to pay to the assureds the insured value of the vessel less the contribution that O'Kane claimed was due from Jones. The assureds challenged O'Kane's right to make any deduction so O'Kane paid the full insured value of US$5 million and sought a contribution from Jones.
The case raised some novel issues. Jones argued that it should not contribute because its policy had no legal effect under the Marine Insurance Act 1906 since the new managers had no legitimate insurable interest in the vessel. The Judge disagreed: the managers had an insurable interest by reason of their potential exposure to liability under the management agreement and their potential loss of income under the management agreement if the vessel were lost or damaged.

Jones also argued that no contribution was due because its policy had been cancelled as recorded in the endorsement. Both policies were of course in force at the time of the loss of the vessel, but O'Kane argued that later events (the cancellation) should be ignored in deciding whether a contribution was due. It was the situation at the time of the loss that was decisive.
The Judge in the O'Kane case agreed. Jones was bound by equity to contribute. At the time of the loss the assureds had the right to proceed against either of the insurers. They could not lose that right against one of the insurers, for example because it was a condition precedent to make a claim under that policy that notice of the loss was given within, say, 14 days, merely because they had chosen to pursue their claim against the other insurer.

Working out the amount of the contribution due from Jones was also complicated. The Marine Insurance Act 1906 says only that the insurers contribute to the overall loss in proportion based on the amount for which each is liable under his own contract.

In cargo insurance, where the insured values under the policies are different, a sensible and practical method for determining the contribution between insurers has evolved outside the courts. This is sometimes referred to as the "common liability" method. Under it there is deemed only to be double insurance up to the lower insured value. The insurers bear the loss equally up to that insured value and the higher insured value policy bears the remainder.
There was no direct case precedent for double insurance on hull and machinery. Other forms of insurance have used the "maximum liability" method whereby the insurers' respective contributions are proportionate to their respective maximum liabilities under the policies; or the "independent liability" method whereby the respective contributions are adjusted proportionately to the amount that each insurer would, independently, be liable to pay to the assured in respect of the loss sustained.

If the loss is equal to or in excess of the maximum sums insured under both policies, the contributions are the same whichever method is used. But if the loss is less, the methods produce significantly different contributions.
The US Courts tend to favour the maximum liability basis for determining contributions between the insurers but in England the trend has been to prefer the independent liability method. The Court in O'Kane followed that trend - although because the vessel was a total loss the same result would have been arrived at using the maximum liability method. The US$5 million loss was to be borne by the first insurer and the second insurer in the ratio 2:1. The contribution due to O'Kane from Jones was therefore US$1.67 million.

So, what lessons can be learned from this case?
Double insurance is expensive for all concerned. For owners and operators it means paying twice over for the same thing - which makes no commercial sense; even though in this case, the assureds between them recovered US$5 million overall rather than just the US$2.5 million under the Jones policy they still had to pay the premium to O'Kane. Moreover they were brought into the dispute about the contribution due from Jones, so they had to incur legal costs not all of which Jones was ordered to pay.

The problem would never have arisen had the new managers checked with their brokers whether the O'Kane policy had been cancelled before taking out the Jones policy themselves. Owners and operators should take care to try to ensure they are fully aware of the cover they have in place before seeking further insurance. This was an unusual case, but simple things like checking whether policy periods overlap can easily be overlooked, especially if it is not clear who within any ownership structure has responsibility for insurance coverage.

Despite everyone's best efforts, however, double insurance will still occur. Once a loss happens there is no going back - unless an exclusion applies the insurers will have to contribute. Working out the contribution due from each insurer should be easier, however, as insurers and assureds now have authoritative guidance, so hopefully this will speed up payments to assureds.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.005-07:00

Does Fraud Pay?
By Roger Miles of Elborne MitchellFirst published: Shipping & Trade Law - Vol 2, No 5 [1st September 2002]

The simple answer is possibly "yes" if you can get away with it but definitely "no" if you are found out. There is perhaps no better illustration of this than the recent Judgment of Mr Justice Moore-Bick in Agapitos & Another -v- Agnew & Others (the "AEGEON") and the Order on Judgment made by Mr Justice Morison in the same case.

In February 1996 the Claimants' vessel "AEGEON" was moored undergoing conversion from a roll-on roll-off car ferry to a passenger cruise ship. On the 19th February sparks from hot work set fire to upholstered seating which was stored nearby and the Port Authority ordered the vessel to be towed from her berth and beached. Whilst that manoeuvre was being carried out, the "AEGEON" struck a wreck and subsequently capsized and sank. The vessel was insured by the Defendants and it was common ground that the vessel was lost by an insured peril. However, Underwriters declined liability on the grounds that the Owners were in breach of one or more of the policy warranties.

When the insurance was initially placed, the terms of cover included:
"Warranted London Salvage Association approval of location, fire fighting and mooring arrangements and all recommendations complied with."

"Warranted no hot work".

When they were advised that the vessel was to be moved to a new location, Underwriters required the Salvage Association Certificate to be up-dated and on the 12th January 1996 Underwriters were informed that hot works would commence soon. On the same day, Underwriters scratched an endorsement wherein they agreed to cover such hot work on condition that it was warranted that the Salvage Association Certificate was updated and all recommendations complied with prior to the commencement of hot work. When they were requested to extend the period of cover on the 6th February 1996, Underwriters agreed but the endorsement scratched on that day read "Warranted London Salvage Association Certificate updated".

In their defence to the claim brought by the Owners of the "AEGEON" Underwriters pleaded several breaches of warranty including breach of the warranty of 6th February 1996. It was Owners' case that they had spoken on the telephone with the Salvage Association surveyor who they said told them that provided the fire extinguishers were overhauled and bilge alarms were fitted, then they could commence hot work. They further claimed that the hot work did not commence until 12th February 1996 by which time the requirements of the Salvage Association surveyor had been carried out. However, two sworn statements taken from workmen immediately after the casualty, averred that hot works of a substantial nature had been carried out from the 1st February. At this stage, Underwriters sought to amend their Defence to allege fraud.

The matter came before a Judge who refused leave to amend the Defence on the grounds that if the Defence of breach of warranty was good then any continuing duty on the Claimants not to deceive Underwriters was discharged by the breach and that anyway a plea of breach of such continuing duty would be superfluous. If Underwriters could not make out the Defence a breach of warranty then any alleged lies by the Claimants would only be material where the truth would have provided Underwriters with a Defence. In the circumstances of this case, the Judge held that the lies could not be material. The Judge also refused to equate lying to promote an otherwise valid claim with fraudulently pursuing an exaggerated claim and tender to the view that the duty of good faith is superseded by the rules governing litigation once litigation has commenced.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Underwriters' Appeal but, in doing so, conducted an exhaustive and interesting review of the relationship with the common law rule on fraudulent claims and Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.

The common law rule, which is applicable even where there is no express clause in the Policy, is that an Assured who has made a fraudulent claim forfeits any lesser claim that he could have properly have made. Thus an insured will be unable to recover if he has in fact suffered no loss, if he has wilfully caused the loss, if he has exaggerated the amount of the loss by a significant degree or if he knowingly seeks to suppress evidence which would provide the defence to the claim. Lord Hobhouse, in The Star Sea, summarised the effect of the common law rule when saying "The fraudulent insured must not be allowed to think that if the fraud is successful, then I will gain, but if it is unsuccessful, I will lose nothing". So, if for example, the Assured has a valid claim for, say, US$100,000 but fraudulently presents his claim in the sum of, say, US$200,000 and the fraud is discovered, the Assured will recover nothing. This would also be true if, when making his claim, the Assured genuinely believed he had a valid claim for US$200,000 but fraudulently continued to pursue a claim in that amount after he had discovered that his true loss was in fact only US$100,000.

Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 provides:
"A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and, if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party".

The Courts have long considered Section 17 to be draconian and have sought ways to limit its applicability whilst not diminishing the effect of the common law rule. In The Star Sea in which it was alleged that the Assured had deliberately withheld from disclosure two experts' reports which Underwriters considered might have assisted them in defending the claim, the House of Lords held that once litigation commences the rules of Court replace the rules of contract of which Section 17 is one. However, The Star Sea did not involve alleged fraud or the use of a fraudulent device by the Assured in pursuing the litigation. The Agapitos case did, and Underwriters argued that even if the Section 17 duty only applied to the pre-litigation stage, the common law rule should continue to apply during the litigation stage. The Court of Appeal, however, could see no reason for there to be a different duration of impact for the Section 17 duty and the common law fraud rule.

So does this mean an Assured can pursue his claim in litigation with impunity if his claim is based on fraudulent evidence? The answer is clearly no. If the fraud is discovered, then the Assured's evidence as a whole is likely to be viewed with the utmost suspicion, and in all probability the Assured will lose his case and be ordered to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

The trial of the main action lasted for some 10 days. Amongst those giving evidence at the trial were the Owner, one of his managers and the surveyor appointed by the Salvage Association.

There was an obvious conflict of evidence as to the conversations which took place between the Owner and his staff and the Salvage Association surveyor. The Judge considered the Salvage Association surveyor to be an excellent witness who listened carefully to the questions put to him, answered them fairly and intelligently and who was quite willing to give ground where it was appropriate to do so. He preferred the surveyor's evidence to that from Owners' side. He found that it would be very unusual and quite out of character for the surveyor to have given any kind of approval for hot work to commence without first having visited the vessel to satisfy himself that everything was in order and to consider what ongoing recommendations were required. The Judge held that there had been five breaches of warranty by Owners although it was only necessary to find one breach of warranty for Owners' claim to fail.

The question of costs came before Mr Justice Morison and in his Order on Judgment he ordered that the Claimants' claims be dismissed and Judgment entered for the Defendants, that the First and Second Claimants should be jointly and severally liable for the costs of the Defendants, that they should pay interest on any costs already paid by the Defendants and that the Defendants' costs should be paid on an indemnity basis. Further, he ordered that the First and Second Claimants should make a payment on account of the Defendants' costs in the sum of £600,000 within 14 days. The Claimants' Application for Leave to Appeal was refused.

As can be seen, the Award on Costs was quite draconian, the reason for this being the manner in which the Claimants had pursued their claim. Ordinarily, the success of the Defendant Underwriters in the main action may well have turned out to be a pyrrhic victory. The Claimants in this type of case are generally a single ship owning company and Underwriters would find it difficult, if not impossible, to enforce any Costs Order in their favour. However, in this case, the Second Claimant was the mortgagee bank and, as can be seen above, both the Owner and the bank were made jointly and severally liable for Underwriters' costs. As no bank could afford to fail to honour a Judgment against them, Underwriters' recovery was assured. Had the Claimants not pursued their claim fraudulently, then probably, whilst they would still have been ordered to pay the Defendants' costs, they would only have been ordered to pay these on the standard basis and the Order on Judgment would have been far less draconian.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.004-07:00

Withdrawing Vessels From Time Charter

First published: P&I International [1st February 2003]

In a strong market, owners may be tempted to withdraw the vessel from service when charterers fail to pay hire, particularly if she is locked into a long-term charter fixed when the market was low. In practice, this course of action can be fraught with danger. Getting it wrong can cost millions of dollars. Common mistakes made by owners are withdrawing the vessel when hire is not yet due or owing and failing to give proper notice under an anti-technicality clause.

Owners should remember that charterers have right up to the last minute to make their payment. In The Afovos [1] hire had not been received by 1900 hours on the day payment was due. The owners withdrew the vessel. Even though hire could not have been credited to the owners' bank account until the opening of business the next day, the withdrawal was held to be unlawful. The court ruled that when payment had to be made on a certain day, it could be made at any time up to midnight. Until that time had passed charterers were not actually in default of their payment obligation.

Owners should also bear in mind that while the charterparty will frequently permit charterers to make deductions from hire, obvious examples being commissions and disbursements advanced to the vessel, the right to deduct may be wider. In The Nanfri [2] , charterers made deductions in respect of a speed and consumption claim. The charter was on the Baltime form. The court held (by reference to Clause 11 of that form) that charterers could deduct off-hire from subsequent hire payments, together with the cost of fuel consumed. It rejected owners' argument that deductions could not be made unless the amount had either been determined by arbitrators or agreed with owners. Lord Denning stated that a charterer "is entitled to quantify his loss by reasonable assessment made in good faith, and deduct the sum so quantified from hire".

Furthermore, charterers may also be entitled at law (and not just by agreement) to deduct claims for damages in respect of owners' breach of charter, again provided their assessment of their claim is made in good faith. The case law on this subject could do with clarification but it appears that this right is limited to situations in which charterers have been deprived of the use of the vessel by owners' breach. The court has allowed deductions for claims for breach of a speed warranty and a failure by owners to load a full cargo. But, in The Nanfri, a deduction in respect of a claim for cargo damage was held to be impermissible.

The fact that charterers may be acting in good faith in making a deduction will not help them if the deduction is not of a type permitted under the charterparty or recognised by law. Consequently charterers make deductions for damages claims very much at their own risk. A recent award illustrates this.

In London Arbitration 17/2002 [3] , the charterers failed to pay hire, claiming damages for loss of profits and for freight withheld by subcharterers as a result of the owners' failure to make the vessel fit for passage through ice to the intended loadport. The owners withdrew the vessel. The Tribunal held that there was no right under the charter or in law to deduct for these types of claim, and upheld the withdrawal.

In that same arbitration, the charterers also argued that if some of their deductions had been made on a premise that was later shown to be false or improper they could still defeat the owners' right to withdraw if they could now show that they were entitled to withhold hire on other grounds. The Tribunal rejected this submission stating that, were it to be accepted, it would mean that no owner could ever withdraw safe in the knowledge that he was acting justifiably; when seeking to justify a deduction from hire in the context of a withdrawal, a charterer could not go beyond what he had declared at the time to be his basis for withholding hire.

The harshness of the obligation upon charterers, especially in situations where hire is paid on time but is short because of the unexpected deduction of bank charges, led to the use of anti-technicality clauses, such as Clause 11(a) in NPYE 1993. These provide for a grace period (expressed in either days or hours) within which charterers, upon notice, can rectify a default in the payment of hire before owners can withdraw the vessel. But anti-technicality clauses can create problems for owners.

Just as with the notice of withdrawal itself, the notice under an anti-technicality clause must be clear and unequivocal. It must make it clear that hire has not been paid punctually and that the owners are giving an ultimatum that unless it is paid within a set period of time (as specified in the charter) they will withdraw the ship. In The Afovos, the notice given stated "Owners have instructed us that in case we do not receive the hire which is due today, to give charterers notice as per clause 31 of the charterparty for withdrawal of the vessel from their service". This was held not to be good notice because it was conditional. Equally, simply drawing the charterers' attention to the relevant clause may not be enough. The notice must leave the recipient in no doubt that unless hire is paid within the specified time allowed under the clause the vessel will be withdrawn.

Furthermore, the notice will be ineffective if it is premature; that is, if it is sent before charterers are actually in default of their payment obligation (although in theory the anti-technicality clause could be worded to permit this). A recent arbitration decision (reported in the context of an application for leave to appeal) dealt with the situation where notice under an anti-technicality clause was sent by email. It was sent before the charterers were in default but received in the charterers' inbox after the deadline for payment had passed. Applying The Afovos, the Tribunal held that the notice was invalid because it was premature [4]. Service of premature notices is a particular danger where the place for payment of hire instalments is in a different time zone to that operating at the owners or their brokers' offices.

In this context, it has been held [5] that a notice telexed by owners shortly before midnight on the day for payment (a Friday) was not premature because it would only be read by the charterers on the following Monday. However, it would be unwise to rely too much on this authority; it is widely felt to be wrong as it appears to conflict with House of Lords' authority in The Afovos.

If the charterers fail to pay hire in time, they are in default. Subsequent tender does not alter that. The danger here for the owners is that if they accept late payment without qualification or delay too long in giving notice of withdrawal they are quite likely to lose the right to withdraw. Owners are given a reasonable time to decide whether to exercise their right to withdraw or to let the charter continue. More time is likely to be allowed for the owners to take this decision where there is an underpayment of hire and they need to investigate whether the charterers have made proper deductions.

If the owners withdraw the vessel unlawfully they will face substantial damages claims. But if there is a silver lining here it seems that charterers have no right to demand that owners account for any additional or wrongful profits they have made by re-fixing the vessel at a higher rate. In another recent arbitration [6], the Tribunal rejected the charterers' argument that they were entitled to an account of the owners' profits, holding that the law did not and should not recognise such a remedy. The charterers were limited to recovering losses that were provable and reasonably foreseeable. So, in the right circumstances, it may still pay owners to withdraw the vessel (even where they suspect that the withdrawal is wrongful) if they have lucrative business for her up their sleeve.

The right of withdrawal remains a very useful way to extricate the vessel from the hands of a difficult charterer or to exploit new opportunities - provided the owners follow the rules. Whenever there is a wrongful withdrawal it is usually because the owners have failed to take simple steps or make checks to ensure that hire is owing, that payment deadlines have actually passed, and that clear notice is given. As a result, entirely avoidable mistakes can negate the intended financial benefits of getting the vessel back. Any owners considering withdrawal should therefore take extra care and, for those in any doubt, their Club or lawyers are there for advice. Using them could save a lot of time and money.

1. [1983] 1 Lloyds Rep, 335
2. [1979] 1 Lloyd's Rep, 201
3. LMLN 600, 14th November 2002
4. The Western Triumph [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep, 1
5. The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd's Rep, 249
6. The reasoned award was, somewhat unusually, reported as The Sine Nomine [2002] 1 Lloyd's Rep, 806

2007-09-19T11:39:00.003-07:00

What price a breach?
By Roger Miles of Elborne MitchellFirst published: Shipping & Trade Law [1st February 2007]

The Facts
The vessel involved was the ACHILLEAS, a 1994-built bulk carrier of about 36,000 gt, managed by the not insubstantial Danaos Shipping Co Limited of Piraeus, Greece. On 22 January 2003 she was chartered on amended NYPE 1946 Form to Transfield Shipping Inc, a major charterer in the dry bulk sector operating out of Hong Kong and specialising in Chinese business. Initially the charter period was for about five to seven months (exact period at charterer’s option) and in which the word “about” was defined to mean plus or minus 15 days. The hire rate was US$13,500 per day and the charterer had to give the owner approximate notice of the re-delivery date and port of re-delivery at 20 and 15 days and definite notice of the re-delivery date and port at 10, 5 and 3 days.

An addendum made on 12 September 2003 fixed the vessel in direct continuation of the charterparty for a further period of a minimum five months; maximum seven months – the exact period again being at the charterers’ option. The further period commenced on 2 October 2003 which meant that even if the charterer opted for the maximum period, the extended charterparty must end by 2 May 2004. The hire rate under the addendum was increased to US$16,750 per day.

As is quite normal, Transfield sub-chartered the vessel to others and the final sub-charterparty during the charter period concerned the carriage of about 67,000 gt of coal from Quingdao, China to Tobata and Oita, Japan. On 8 April 2004 Transfield gave the owner 20 days’ notice of re-delivery, with re-delivery to take place between 30 April and 2 May. On 15 April it gave 15 days’ notice, again with re-delivery to take place between the same dates. On 20 April, it gave 10 days’ definite notice of re-delivery between the same dates and seven days’ definite notice three days later; again with re-delivery between the same dates and this time expressing the intention to re-deliver at Oita.

In any event, the owners, no doubt in reliance upon the 20, 15 and 10 days’ notices of re-delivery fixed its vessel with Cargill International SA. for a period of about four to six months, on or about 21 April. The laycan under this fixture was from 28 April to 8 May 2004, therefore enabling actual delivery to take place up to six days after the Transfield charter should have come to an end and at least six days after the date for which Transfield had given notice of re-delivery.

The vessel completed loading at Quingdao under the final sub-charterparty on 24 April and on 26 April Transfield indicated to the owner that discharge at Oita was unlikely to be completed before the 6 or 7 May. The next day it revised the notice of re-delivery to 4/5 May. The vessel arrived at Oita on 30 April, having already discharged part of her cargo at Tobata, but once there she experienced delay. The charterer again revised the re-delivery notice, this time to 8/9 May.

By 5 May, the owner had realised that the vessel would be likely to miss the laycan under the Cargill charter and sought re-negotiation of the laycan period. Cargill agreed to extend the laycan until 11 May but only if the daily rate of hire was reduced from US$39,500 to US$31,500. The owner agreed to these terms. The vessel was re-delivered to them by Transfield on the morning of 11 May and at the same time they delivered the vessel to Cargill.

The Claim
It was not in dispute that the actual net loss suffered by the owner as a result of the charterer’s breach of the charterparty – its failure to re-deliver the vessel by 2 May 2004 – amounted to US$1,364,584.37. This sum was calculated by taking the difference between the daily rate of US$39,500 originally agreed with Cargill and the daily rate of US$31,500, subsequently agreed with the extension of the laycan for whole of the Cargill charter period less the additional hire earned by the owner under the Transfield charter during the period from 2 May up to actual re-delivery. In the alternative, the owner claimed US$158,301.17, being the difference between the charterparty hire rate and the market rate for the period from 2 May until actual re-delivery. The charterer contended that the lower alternative calculation was the correct measure of damages.

The Law
That the owner’s alternative claim was argued by the charterer to be correct is hardly surprising. Any marine reference book would have supported it at first sight. For example, Scrutton, Charterparties and Bills of Lading (20th ed.) states, having dealt with the marginal tolerance allowed at common law for completion of the final voyage:
“if, through no fault of either side, the voyage does not finish within the tolerance, hire continues payable at the charter rate until the end of the period of express or implied tolerance and, in the absence of an exonerating clause, damages representing the market rate for the period thereafter.”

The editors rely upon Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Limited v. Gesuri Chartering Co Limited (The “Peonia”) [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 100 and Chiswell Shipping v. National Iranian Tanker Co, (The World Symphony and The World Renown) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 115. However, neither of these cases involved a situation where a subsequent charter was either lost or had to be compromised as a result of the late delivery.

In English law the general rule on the quantification of damages, whether those damages are sought in tort or in contract, is that they should put the injured party in the same position as he would have been in but for the tort or breach of contract. This rule was first espoused by Lord Blackburn in Livingston v. Rawyards Coal Co [1880] 5 App. Cas. 25, 39 and it has been either cited with approval or re-stated in a similar form consistently ever since. Were this general rule to be the only rule applicable to the quantification of damages then, as the net loss suffered by the owner as a result of charterer’s breach of contract was agreed to amount to US$1,364,584.37, that would have been the end of the matter. But life, and legal life in particular, is never that simple. It was felt that in certain circumstances application of the general rule without limitation would be unjust to the paying party. Insofar as damages arising out of a breach of contract are concerned, the most important case to seek to impose a limit on the recovery was Hadley v. Baxendale [1854] 9 Ex 341 and it was the interpretation of the rule in this case which exercised the minds of the arbitrators and then of the High Court.

The first limb of the rule laid down in Hadley v. Baxendale was that the damages recoverable by one party following a breach of contract by the other:
“… should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally i.e. according to the usual course of things, from such a breach itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result of the breach of it …”.

The second limb of the rule, to the effect that if the damages are not covered by the first limb but arise from some special circumstances, the Defendant must have had actual or implied knowledge of those special circumstances for the damages to be recoverable, does not concern us here, it not being the case that Transfield had actual knowledge of the terms of the Cargill charter. Although the judgment and the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale remain good law, Courts have subsequently struggled with the language in which it is expressed and there have been attempts to re-state the rule, notably by the Court of Appeal in Victoria Laundry v. Newman [1949] 2 KB 52. In that case, Asquith LJ introduced the “reasonably foreseeable” test but, in 1969, the House of Lords and Lord Reid in particular were critical of this. In Czarnikow v Koufos (The Heron II) [1969] 1 AC Lord Reid expressed the view that the proper test is whether the loss suffered is
‘ … of a kind which the Defendant, when he made the contract, ought to have realised was not unlikely to result from the breach … the words “not unlikely” denoting a degree of probability considerably less than an even chance but nevertheless not very unusual and easily foreseeable.”

The Award and Appeal
The three arbitrators forming the tribunal were Mr Bruce Buchan, Mr. David Farrington and Mr Christopher Moss. The tribunal reached a majority award that the owner’s claim fell within the first limb of rule in Hadley v. Baxendale and succeeded in full. Mr. Christopher Moss dissented. In arriving at the majority award, the tribunal considered that in today’s market with its ease of communication and a much higher emphasis in trying to keep a vessel in continuous employment, the loss of or the need to renegotiate a future fixture was a not unlikely result of late delivery which was known and accepted by those participating in the charter market. The parties to this charter would have had it in mind as they are active in the shipping market. It was not disputed that the market rates for tonnage go up as well as down, sometimes quite rapidly, and this was market knowledge. They went on to say that the type of loss actually suffered by the owner was within the contemplation of the parties as a not unlikely result of the breach, and the fact that the loss was greater than anticipated was irrelevant. The type of loss was foreseeable.

The period of the Cargill charter was not unusual but had it been regarded as an extravagant or an unusual bargain, this may have had an effect on the quantum of the recoverable claim. Relying upon Lord Reid’s judgment in The Heron II, they concluded that the type of loss claimed must be taken to have been in the parties’ contemplation at the time when the addendum to the charter was agreed and that therefore the claim fell within the first limb of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale. Had they not reached this conclusion they added that, as there was not any actual or implied knowledge of the Cargill fixture by the charterer at the date of the addendum, the claim could not have been brought within the second limb of Hadley v. Baxendale.

The charterer appealed to the High Court and the matter came before Christopher Clarke J. The charterer submitted that there had never been a case where damages had been awarded in respect of loss of profits caused by late delivery; that it was an established principle that the measure of damages should be based upon the difference between market rate and the charter rate in such circumstances and that it was only such damages that fell under the first limb in Hadley v. Baxendale, loss of profits falling under the second limb. The owner contended that its actual loss was US$1,364,584.37; that it should be put in the same position as if no breach had occurred; that the loss of profit suffered was contemplated by the parties as a type of loss which was a not unlikely consequence of the charterer’s breach; and that there was no rule that only the difference between the market and the charter rates could be recovered under the first limb of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale.

In his judgment, Christopher Clarke J reviewed the authorities on late re-delivery, the text books and the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, including the modern approach to the rule expounded by Lord Reid in The Heron II, in which he had said that he did not think it was intended that there should be two rules or that two different standards should apply. The Judge concluded that on the basis of the facts found by the majority of the arbitrators the owner’s claim was not too remote; that the possibility of missing the cancelling date for a future fixture as a result of late re-delivery was not very unusual; and that the kind of loss suffered by the owner was in the contemplation of the parties. He went on to hold that, contrary to the submissions by the charterer, the majority of the arbitrators had applied the correct test on foreseeability and were plainly concerned with a result that was or ought to have been foreseen as not unlikely. A further submission on behalf of the charterer was that for it to be held liable for the owner’s claim, it was necessary to show that it had accepted responsibility for a loss of profit on a subsequent charter. In light of this submission, the Judge considered that if a type of loss for which recovery is sought is a type which the parties, as experienced persons in the charter market, would, if they thought about it, realise was a not unlikely consequence of the breach, then the charterer must have accepted the risk of being liable to compensate the owner if that loss occurred. Further submissions made by the charterers were: first, where there is an available market for vessels such as the ACHILLEAS to be chartered in and out, then, unless there are special circumstances, the owner’s damages are restricted to the market/charterparty rate difference during the overrun period; and, second, the law does not concern itself with contracts made between owners and third parties and what the owner chooses to do with his vessel after re-delivery is a matter for him and can neither increase nor reduce his claim.

Counsel also argued that sale of goods cases were analogous. The Judge, in order to consider these submissions, reviewed the authorities on premature termination of the charterparty, on non-delivery of goods, on supply of defective goods, on delayed delivery of goods and on damaged goods. Having done so, he did not consider that they affected the conclusion he had already reached. Finally, it was submitted on behalf of the charterer that if the majority award was allowed to stand, then the assessment of damages would become very complicated, and if the owner’s claim for loss of profits fell under the first limb of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, then the second limb of the rule in that case would become redundant. The Judge considered that problems in assessing damages under the award in other circumstances was not a good reason to deprive the owner of recovery for its loss. With regard to the second limb of the rule in Hadley v. Baxendale, the learned Judge found that this would still come into play in a case where the rate under the subsequent charter was not the market rate, where the period was unusual or where its terms were very special. He concluded that the claim was not too remote, that it was foreseeable and that the majority of arbitrators were not wrong in law. He therefore dismissed the appeal. It is understood that a further appeal has now been lodged with the Court of Appeal.

Conclusion
The question “what price a breach?” has never previously been considered by arbitrators or the High Court in connection with a breach by a charterer of a re-delivery clause in a charterparty where such breach resulted in the loss of or need to re-negotiate the terms of a subsequent charterparty between the owner and a third party.

I would submit that, on the facts as found, the majority of the arbitrators and the learned Judge were right. Before the owner negotiated the subsequent charter with Cargill, Transfield had given three notices of re-delivery. The original cancelling date negotiated between the owner and Cargill provided a six-day cushion in the event that Transfield re-delivered the vessel late.

The period of the Cargill charter was similar to and, in fact, slightly shorter than that of the original Transfield charter and of the further period agreed by the addendum. Transfield charter is a major charterer in the dry bulk field, is mentioned almost daily in the fixture reports and, as such, probably have a better knowledge than most of the charter market and of the fluctuation in hire rates in that market. For all of these reasons, it ought to have foreseen as not unlikely that the owner would arrange a subsequent fixture and that the owner might need to renegotiate that fixture if it breached the re-delivery clause.

If the facts as found had been a little different, then the arbitrators and the Court may have arrived at another decision. If Transfield’s notices of re-delivery had indicated that it was unlikely to meet the re-delivery date or if the owner had negotiated a cancelling date with Cargill on or only slightly later than the re-delivery date in the Transfield charter, would that fixture still have been foreseeable? Similarly, if the period of the Cargill charter had been, say, 12 months, or even longer, when most fixtures were being made for shorter periods, would that have been foreseeable? Finally if, rather than being Transfield, the charterer had been a relative novice in the charter market, would the fixture to Cargill have been foreseeable as not unlikely?

The charterer has obtained leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and it would not be surprising if a case of this importance ultimately reaches the House of Lords.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.002-07:00

Guidance on causation where there may be more than one potential cause of loss
By Peter Tribe of Elborne MitchellFirst published: Shipping & Trade Law - Jan/Feb 2002 [1st January 2002]

Causation is an essential but an often problematic element of any claim. This recent case saw shipowners run a rather unusual defence to a cargo claim, and the judgment of Tomlinson J offers useful guidance on causation where there may be more than one potential 'cause' of the loss.

The facts
The claimants were the American purchasers of a cargo of ethylene being produced in Mexico, which the claimants intended to sell in the European market. They were buying the cargo on CFR terms from the Mexican producers. The nominated carrying vessel was The Atrice which was a vessel demise chartered by the defendants.
Cargo was loaded to the vessel in stages. Upon loading the initial cargo parcel, high levels of contamination were detected. After deliberation, and after verifying that the cargo in the shore tanks was pure, the cargo owners decided to continue loading cargo in the expectation that any contamination resulting from the condition of the ship's tanks would diminish as more clean cargo was loaded.

That decision by cargo owners was taken without the active involvement of the Master who, although aware of the possibility that the vessel might be the cause of the contamination, (although rejecting that possibility), had not prevented further loading of cargo, had not taken any steps to investigate whether the cargo tanks themselves were contamination and had, indeed, paid an essentially passive role in the loading process. In the event, analysis of the fully loaded cargo showed it to be within specification.

The vessel sailed from the load port, the master having issued a clean bill of lading for the whole cargo. On arrival at the discharge port, however, the entire cargo was found to be contaminated to very high levels and ultimately was sold for a heavily discounted price.
The cargo owners claimed damages against the shipowners alleging that the vessel was unfit to carry the cargo in question and that the owners had failed in their duty to exercise due diligence, before and at the beginning of the voyage, to make the vessel's tanks and lines fit to carry the cargo. The shipowners admitted that the contamination had resulted, initially, from the unclean condition of the ship. Controversially, however, they argued that once the contamination had become apparent, the cargo owners should have appreciated that the vessel was unfit and should have ceased loading. They said that the subsequent damage was in fact therefore the fault of the cargo interests and not of the ship because the unreasonable decision to continue loading broke the chain of causation.

The matter came before Mr Justice Tomlinson. Tomlinson J opened his judgment with the recognition that this was a 'cargo claim of a somewhat unusual nature'. He noted the defendants' admission of breach of contract and observed that their breach must have been particularly gross since according to their own expert witness, the extent of the contamination observed during sampling at the initial stage of loading was likely to have exceeded anything which the attending surveyor had previously experienced. However, the judge said, 'the owners seek to pray in aid the grossness of the contamination then observed in support of their contention that the bulk of the loss sustained by cargo interests is to be regarded as having been caused by their own decision to continue loading. That was, say the defendants, a decision for which there was no rational basis and which they even characterise as reckless .... That decision was, say the defendants, so aberrant that it must be regarded as breaking the causal link between the owners' admitted breach and the ensuing contamination of the balance of the ethylene parcel thereafter loaded.'

The judge acknowledged that any conduct of the claimants could not be regarded as breaking the chain of causation between the admitted breach of contract and the loss unless that conduct could be regarded as the sole cause of the loss to the exclusion of any efficacy of the breach. The court here following the decision in Heskell -v- Continental Express (1950) 1 AER. The judgment therefore proceeded on the basis that the contract breaker would be liable so long as his breach remained an effective cause of the loss, the court not being required to choose which cause was the most effective.

The shipowners argued that the decision to continue loading cargo was made by the claimants and that their master played no active part in that decision. The owners also argued that the master was effectively under the orders of charterers (not represented in the litigation) to load the cargo and that the master could therefore do nothing without the instruction or cooperation of the charterers. Tomlinson J, however, did not find himself persuaded by the owners' arguments. He said:
'A shipowner cannot in my judgement abdicate responsibility in this manner. It is no answer to an allegation of breach of the contract contained in or evidenced by the bill of lading to say that it was consequent upon performance of an inconsistent contractual obligation owed to others.'

The judge ruled that cargo damage was a matter in which a master was obliged to take an active interest. The master should not have allowed further cargo to be loaded unless confident that no further damage would result or that cargo interests would accept responsibility. The shipowners were therefore also in breach of their duty to properly and carefully load the cargo; that breach remained an effective cause of the loss notwithstanding the quality of the cargo owners' decision to continue loading.

That failure by the master and the consequent breach by shipowners meant that the cargo owners could not, in the circumstances, face criticism by the owners that they had undertaken an independent course of action which led to the damage to the cargo. But even had that not been the case, said the judge, the shipowners' argument would still fail.

The shipowners had argued that the cargo owners' decision to load beyond the coolant parcel of cargo lacked any rational basis and was negligently made. The judge characterised the cargo owners' decision to continue loading in the face of only limited analysis evidence as being no more scientific than that they decided to see what happened and to hope for the best, although, in the event, the analysis results seemed to vindicate their decision. The judge acknowledged, however, that the cargo owners faced a dilemma when cargo contamination was discovered. There was no obvious way of returning the contaminated cargo to the shore. Disposal at sea remained a theoretical, but expensive, option. The shipowners did not undertake to accept responsibility for any of this potential cost. The judge decided that the cargo owners' decision could be approached in terms of whether, on the one hand, it was a sufficiently unreasonable decision to effect a break in the chain of causation or, on the other hand, whether it should be regarded as something reasonably done in mitigation of the consequences flowing from the admitted breach of contract by the shipowners. However one looked at it, the judge concluded, the standard of reasonableness to be imposed upon the cargo owners' decision, was not a high one in view of the fact that the defendant was an admitted wrongdoer. The Judge quoted with approval the words of Lord Macmillan in Banco de Portugal -v- Waterlow (1932) AC 452:
'Where the sufferer from a breach of contract finds himself in consequence of that breach placed in a position of embarrassment the measures which he may be driven to adopt in order to extricate himself ought not to be weighed in nice scales at the instance of the party whose breach of contract has occasioned the difficulty ... the law is satisfied if the party placed in a difficult situation by reason of the breach of a duty owed to him has acted reasonably in the adoption of remedial measures.'

The judge also found the approach of Lord Hoffmann in South Australia Asset Management Corporation -v- York Montague Limited (1997) AC 191 helpful. Lord Hoffmann had put the question in terms of whether the loss could be said to be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plaintiff having been placed by the defendants' breach of duty in the predicament which he found himself. The judge found that the decision to continue loading cargo was not sufficiently aberrant as wholly to supplant the unfitness of the vessel as the effective cause of the contamination. In the circumstances, the cargo owners' decision was one which could reasonably be anticipated might be made consequent upon creation by the owners of the dilemma which confronted those cargo owners. The judge found therefore that the shipowners' breach of contract remained an effective cause of the contamination of the entire cargo. Two things emerge from this judgment.

Firstly, a contending cause of damage will not necessarily arise when a primary breach prompts a particular response by the injured party.
Secondly, where that response is one which might be contemplated, or is, in itself, not an unreasonable response to the primary breach, responsibility will usually remain with the person originating the primary breach.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.001-07:00

Falling markets, redelivery and notice

First published: Elborne Mitchell website [16th August 2005]

The recent dramatic fall in the Handymax and Panamax markets is likely to lead to more disputes over redelivery. Hire rates have dropped to as little as US$10,000 from a US$40,000 peak just a few months ago, and losses on breaches of existing charters could be substantial following such a steep decline. Indeed, it was reported last week that a Swiss-based company redelivered three panamaxes early, with one of the vessels now earning less than half the hire it previously commanded.

And it is not only these markets that are suffering - most size brackets have seen a decline recently. The Baltic Dry, Handymax, Panamax and Capesize indices all showed a fall in rates at the approximately the same time last year and then recovered throughout the later part of the year. However, the dip over recent months has been steeper, and gone lower, than that in 2004.
This decline is likely to lead to friction between owners - looking to maintain high value deals for as long as possible - and charterers who, tied into high hire rates, may well want to escape existing commitments in favour of lower hire rates and greater profits. Rapid changes in the market often trigger disputes related to redelivery or breach of charter and the frictions that arise are understandable when operators could easily be looking at losses in excess of US$20,000 per day.

In the current market the parties most likely to default will be charterers looking to escape punishing losses or to take advantage of more favourable rates of hire elsewhere. Whilst many deals will no doubt be renegotiated on commercial bases, there is generally no obligation on an owner to do so and this is where disputes as to redelivery may arise. Size matters, of course: larger operators may be able to pressure owners into accepting early redelivery using the promise of future business; smaller operators are less likely to be able to do so and many may seek to redeliver vessels early, or as early as they are permitted under the charter.

The difficulty for charterers is that redelivery provisions are usually very explicit. The charterparty will stipulate when the charterer may redeliver, where he may redeliver and how he is to do so (such as on proper notice, in like good order and condition etc.). Any redelivery earlier than the stated provisions will almost undoubtedly give rise to claims against the charterer and the owner will be able to recover hire from him - at the full charter rate - until such time as proper redelivery takes place.

Further, while the time and place of redelivery are usually plain enough on the face of the agreement, charterers should bear in mind the notice provisions for redelivery. These are more than just guidelines; they are binding terms of the contract and must be adhered to. Failure to give adequate notice may result in a claim for lost hire. If a charterer fails to comply with the notice obligation it may well continue to be responsible for the payment of such hire as would have been payable up to the proper time of redelivery, i.e. as if notice had been given correctly. In certain circumstances a charterer may even find himself liable for losses in excess of hire.
The need to give notice is often overlooked but failure to do so according to the terms of the charterparty can lead to substantial claims against the unwary operator.

2007-09-19T11:39:00.000-07:00

Shipping

By Jonathan Steer of Elborne Mitchell

First published: Maritime Risk International [1st January 2007]

Due diligence and the new vessel under the Hague and Hague Visby Rules.
It is of course well known that, under the Hague and Hague-Visby Rules, a carrier has a non-delegable duty to exercise due diligence, before and at the beginning of the voyage, to make the vessel seaworthy. In the past, this duty has been held not to stretch back to defects originating from a time before the new vessel came into the carrier's 'orbit'. This year, however, that principle has been somewhat shaken [1]. The Happy Ranger, a heavy-lift vessel, was built for her unfortunate owners by various experienced and well-reputed contractors. Approved manufacturers were used and, with one notable exception, as it turned out, the contractors carried out the required tests on the ship's gear.

During loading of the vessel for her maiden voyage, one of the hooks on the vessel's cranes broke and the cargo fell to the quayside, suffering around $2m of damage. It was accepted that the vessel was not seaworthy, it having been established that there was a serious casting defect in the broken hook. The hook had not undergone a load test during construction.
The question was whether the owners had exercised due diligence; the Commercial Court in England held that they had not. The owners were found liable for the damage because, although the problem was pre-existing on delivery of the new vessel, they knew which tests had been carried out on the hooks and should have realised, in light of their expertise and involvement in the vessel's construction, that the load test (which was required by the classification society and would have revealed the defect) was not amongst them.

This case should serve both as a wake up call for those commissioning newbuildings and a reminder for carriers in general of the non-delegable nature of the due diligence obligation. It cannot be assumed that a newly built vessel will be seaworthy, nor can it be assumed that those involved in its construction have jumped through all the necessary hoops, no matter how experienced and respected those contractors may be.
Negligent stowage and unseaworthiness under NYPE 1946
Clause 8 of NYPE 1946 ("Charterers are to load, stow and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the captain") imposes responsibility for stowage on the charterer. There are two exceptions to this: i) where the master actually supervises stowage and loss is attributable to that supervison, or ii) where loss is attributable to a lack of care "in matters pertaining to the ship of which the master was (or should have been) aware but the charterers were not...". The issue may be complicated where the charterparty also incorporates the Hague Rules.

The Commercial Court in England this year considered the position where the stowage was so negligent as to render the ship unseaworthy [2]. The facts were that a cargo of calcium hypochlorite, an unstable compound, was stored next to the ship's bunker tank in accordance with a stowage plan prepared on behalf of charterers. The tank was overheated during the voyage, resulting in an explosion. The owners claimed for loss of hire and damage to the ship. The second issue was whether, given that the bunker tank had been heated excessively, owners could rule on the Hague Rules Article 4 Rule 2 defence relating to acts, neglects or defaults in the management of the ship.

The Court held that clause 8 responsibility for stowage only reverted from the charterers to the owners where there had been actual intervention in the stowage by the master (which there had not been in this case). Mere review of the stowage plan was held not to constitute actual intervention. The court rejected the argument by the charterers that the master was under a duty to intervene where the stowage was so bad as to render the vessel unseaworthy on the basis that the issue here was the allocation of responsibility for stowage as between the shipowner and the charterer. Responsibility for stowage remained, therefore, even in these circumstances, with the charterer. The second point was also decided in favour of the shipowner. Despite the fact that it should have been obvious that overheating of the bunker tank would pose a risk to the cargo, the action of heating was done entirely for the ship's purposes and had nothing to do with the care of the cargo. Accordingly, the shipowner was entitled to rely on the Hague-Visby Rules Article 4 Rule 2 defence.

Charterers will wish always to consider whether it is feasible to amend the stowage clause to read "Charterers are to load, stow and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision and responsibility of the captain" in order to shift responsibility for the consequences of negligent stowage back to the owners.

Frustration of charterparties
Two English High Court decisions this year illustrate the difference between what is and what is not a frustrating event. A contract is frustrated where something happens, through no fault of either party and in circumstances not provided for in the contract, which fundamentally changes the nature of the contract and renders performance impossible without drastic changes to the parties' agreed obligations. Thus, in one case [3] the unlawful 3-month detention, by the Karachi Port Trust, of a vessel chartered in by the salvors in connection with the grounding of the Tasman Spirit, was not a frustrating event, primarily because delay was in this case one of the commercial risks undertaken by the parties. By contrast, a contract for the carriage of vegetable oil to Lagos, Nigeria, was frustrated by the Nigerian government banning importation of the cargo prior to loading, which would have made performance of the contract illegal [4].

Marine Insurance
The English Court of Appeal's judgment in Bolton MBC v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd and Commercial Union Insurance Company Ltd [5], whilst not related to marine insurance, has clarified the principle of waiver by election and is of relevance to, and will be welcomed by, insurers generally. The insurers had rejected an asbestos claim for coverage reasons, there being a disagreement as to when the illness arose and, accordingly, which of the insurers was liable to indemnify the assured.

The key issue for these purposes, however, was whether, in taking a coverage point, an insurer thereby elected to waive any right to rely on other policy defences. In this case, the assured was in breach of the 'condition precedent' obligation to notify the insurer immediately of any accident or claim.
The Court of Appeal ruled that, for the principle of waiver by election to apply, the insurer must have exercised a choice, with knowledge of the relevant facts, between inconsistent courses of action, e.g. between affirming or denying cover. An insurer's decision to raise one policy defence over another does not satisfy this test - here, there was no inconsistency since both policy defences went to the same end, i.e. rejection of the claim.

False allegations and the assured's duty of disclosure
In another Court of Appeal judgment that will be heartening for insurers, it was held that allegations of dishonesty in pending Greek criminal proceedings, unresolved on placement of the war risks policy, were material facts and should have been disclosed [6]. This was despite the fact that the allegations were unrelated to the assured risk and, by the time of the trial of the insurance dispute, had been dismissed by the Greek Court.

The assured argued that, in light of these facts, the allegations were immaterial to the insurance and therefore not disclosable. The Court of Appeal reaffirmed the established principle that the test of materiality involves establishing as a matter of fact those details which a prudent underwriter would expect to be told when considering his underwriting decision. The judge at first instance had considered expert underwriting evidence on that subject and had concluded that the allegations were indeed material. Accordingly, the insurers were entitled to avoid the policy for non-disclosure.

Although the facts of this case are somewhat unusual [7], the principle is of wider importance: it is well-established the assured is under a duty to disclose all matters which a prudent underwriter would want to know. This case, however, further confirms that this duty extends to unsubstantiated or untrue allegations ("moral hazards"), and that there is no need for the insurer to show that the allegations are actually true.

"Warranted fully crewed at all times" - what does this really mean?
A fire occurred on a berthed vessel [8]. The crew members had all been dismissed and the master had temporarily gone home, 30 minutes' drive away. The insurers denied cover on the grounds of breach of the above warranty. It was accepted that, in the circumstances, the presence of the master alone would have been sufficient to satisfy the warranty. The English Admiralty Court gave short shrift to the assured's argument that the court should look to the employment of the crew rather than their actual location at any particular time. It was held that the warranty obliged the assured to have at least one crew member on board 24 hours a day subject to i) emergencies and (ii) the performance of necessary duties requiring temporary departure from the vessel.

Insurance Broker's Regulation

2007-09-19T11:19:00.000-07:00

Insurers and reinsurers have been receiving letters from brokers telling them to agree to the terms of their TOBAs or the brokers won’t be able to do businesswith them. Brokers do notwant to run the risk of non-compliance with the FSA rules particularly in the light of the ‘Dear CEO’ letter. In many cases, no consideration has been given to individual business relationships and no negotiation has been entered into.
Amidst all the confusion, it has been forgotten that in order to understand the rules, you must go back to basics.

The basics
A broker acts as the agent of its client, the insured, and the law of agency governs the relationship under which the broker acts as the insured’s agent. It follows that where a broker holds premiums and claims monies, it does so as the agent of the insured. The insured bears the credit risk of the insolvency of the broker. For example, if an insured pays premium to its agent, the broker, and the broker becomes insolvent before the money is passed on to the insurer, the insured may not be on cover and may bear the loss of premium itself (depending, of course, on the terms of the policy). Unless the policy provides otherwise, the insurer bears no loss and
provides no cover to the insured. However, in respect of marine insurance, the broker is directly responsible to the insurer for the premium (section 53 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA)).

Similarly, if an insurer pays a claim to a broker, the insured will be deemed to have received the claims monies once they have been paid to its agent, the broker (again, depending on the terms of the policy). The insured bears the credit risk of the broker becoming insolvent before it passes on the claims monies. The insurer has no further liability once it has paid the claim to the broker. However, in respect ofmarine insurance, the insurer is directly responsible to the insured for payment of losses or returnable premium (section 53 MIA). Some intermediary clauses, particularly in reinsurance treaties, seek to reverse the credit risk by treating payment to the broker by the reinsured as payment to the reinsurer.

The Client Money Rules
The Client Money Rules, which are set out in chapter 5 of the Client Assets Sourcebook (CASS), have been designed to provide insureds with a much greater degree of protection than that
provided under the law of agency set out above. The FSA’s General Principles for Business (Principle 10) require firms to arrange adequate protection for clients’ assets when the firm is
responsible for them. Such protection includes the proper accounting and handling of client money. In line with Principle 10, a broker who holds client money must do so in accordance with
the Client Money Rules (subject to certain exceptions, most notably for reinsurance contracts).

The Client Money Rules provide two options:
— money held by the broker on behalf of its principal, the insured, ie premiums and claims money, is client money and must be segregated into a Client Account (which is either a statutory trust account or a non-statutory trust account maintained in accordance with the Client Money Rules), and cannot be used to reimburse other creditors in the event of the broker’s insolvency (CASS 5.3 and 5.4),

— money held by the broker on behalf of the insurer is not client money and does not have to be held in a Client Account (see further below).

Money held of behalf of the insurer
The Client Money Rules permit an insurer and an intermediary to agree that the broker holds money as agent of the insurer (CASS 5.2). This money can include premiums and claims monies as well as other money, such as professional fees. Before a broker can hold any money (whether premiums, claims or other money) as agent of the insurer, a written agreement must be entered into to that effect in accordance with the Client Money Rules. If a broker does not have such written agreement in place with an insurer, it cannot hold any money as agent of that insurer.
If the written agreement provides that the broker holds premiums and/or claims money as agent of the insurer, the insurer (rather than the insured) bears the credit risk of the broker’s insolvency.

This is known as ‘risk transfer’.
The effect of risk transfer is that money held by the broker pursuant to the written agreement are treated as being held by the insurer. This gives the insured protection. For example, it pays
premium to the broker where the broker has agreed risk transfer with the insurer, the premium is deemed to be received by the insurer when it is paid to the broker. Similarly, when the insurer pays a claim to the broker, where risk transfer has been agreed, the claim will not be deemed to be paid to the insured until the broker actually does so. If there is no written agreement in place, the premiums and claims money will be held by the broker in accordance with option A above. In addition, the broker will not be able to hold any other money, eg professional fees, as agent of the insurer.

Money held by a broker as agent of an insurer is not client money (CASS 5.1.5R) and therefore does not have to be placed in a segregated account in accordance with the Client Money Rules.
Thismeans, in essence, that the broker is not restricted in the manner in which it can use money held pursuant to the risk transfer agreement and can use the money to meet its other liabilities or to finance its business. Whilstmany insurers have accepted the principle of risk transfer,
they also require that money held by a broker on their behalf are protected from the broker’s other creditors.

In respect of money held by a broker on its behalf, an insurer can apply one of the following options:
— impose no protective measures on the broker and bear the credit risk in the event of the broker’s insolvency or misuse of the money.
— require that money held on its behalf are held in a separate trust accountmaintained for its benefit.
— permit the money to be ‘co-mingled’ in the Client Account maintained by the intermediary in accordance with the Client Money Rules (CASS 5.1.5AR).

Co-mingling
Co-mingling is only an issue if an insurer and a broker have entered into a written agreement providing that the broker holds money on behalf of the insurer. The Client Money Rules permit a broker and an insurer to agree that money held by the broker on behalf of the insurer is to be treated as client money and to be kept in the Client Account (alongside the money held by the broker on behalf of insureds). If an insurer agrees or wishes that money held by the broker on its behalf is kept in the Client Account, the insurer must agree to this arrangement in writing and must also agree that its interests in the Client Account are subordinated to the interests of the intermediary’s other clients. Other than as set out above, an insurer (when acting as such) with whom a broker conducts insurance mediation activities is not to be treated as a client of the intermediary (CASS 5.1.6R).

In entering into a co-mingling arrangement the insurer is still bearing the credit risk rather than the insured but is simply taking steps to protect its own interests. In agreeing to subordinate its
interests to those of the intermediary’s other ‘clients’, an insurer must be careful to ensure that ‘clients’ do not include other insurers whose fundsmay also be held in a Client Account pursuant to a risk transfer agreement. The insurer’s interests should be subordinated only to those of insureds.

Client Account
The holding of client money in segregated accounts means that money in the account are protected in the event of the insolvency of the intermediary. The Client Money Rules set out particular requirements relating to the establishment and maintenance of these Client Accounts.

Reinsurance
The Client Money Rules permit brokers to make an election to apply the Client Money Rules to their reinsurance business. The issues outlined in this article are therefore relevant to reinsurers carrying on business with brokers in those circumstances.

Misconceptions corrected
To clarify some common misconceptions in relation to the Client Money Rules:
— There is no FSA requirement for firms to enter into TOBAs, although clearly good business practice dictates that firms should set out in writing the terms of their business relationships.
— It is not correct that insurers and brokers cannot do business with each other unless they have entered into a risk transfer agreement, permitting the broker to hold money as the agent
of the insurer.
— There is no obligation on an insurer to agree that a broker holds money as its agent (subject to certain exceptions, eg marine insurance). The policy wording may also affect the position of the parties in relation to certain policies.
— If an insurer has not entered into a risk transfer agreement permitting a broker to hold money as its agent, the issues of co-mingling and subordination are not relevant. The broker
will hold premiums and claims money as agent of the insured. However, insurers and reinsurers must note that, in the absence of a risk transfer agreement, the brokers cannot hold other money, eg professional fees, on their behalf.
— The FSA’s 14 July deadline related only to the requirement that insurers agreed to the subordination of their interests in the Client Account and was only relevant where the insurer had already entered into a written agreement permitting the broker to hold money on its behalf and for that money to be comingled in the Client Account.
— Where an insurer has agreed risk transfer, the broker can be restricted to holding only one category of money, eg one (or more) of premiums, claims or professional fees. There is no
requirement that all money must be held as the agent of the insurer.
— The Lloyd’s Model TOBAs are just models. They do not fit all circumstances and should be adapted to the business relationship between the insurer and broker entering into the chosen model.

Insurance Claim

2007-09-19T10:53:00.003-07:00

Claim Asuransi

Umumnya dalam praktek asuransi terdapat 2 macam kategori claim yaitu sebagai berikut:
1. Claim umum
2. Claim luar biasa
Claim umum dibagi dalam claim kecil dan claim besar dan claim luar biasa.
Claim luar biasa yaitu tuntutan ganti rugi atas kerusakan yang disebabkan karena sifat-sifat khas dari barang itu atau adanya kekuatan luar biasa, sedangkan claim besar dan claim kecil, terbatas pada jumlah-jumlah tertentu, misalnya lebih dari suatu jumlah tertentu dikategorikan claim besar dan sebaliknya claim kecil.
Adalah tepat jika dalam praktek orang mengadakan pembagian claim umum dan claim khusus. di luar negeri claim umum diselesaikan oleh suatu club yang disebut Protection & indemnity Club (P&I), sedang claim-claim khusus yang luar biasa dipertanggungkan kepada asuradeur.
Bahwa dalam pengajuan claim guna penuntutan ganti rugi, sang assured perlu dan wajib mengajukan beberapa dokumen penting sebagai berikut:
1. Polis asli
2. B/L
3. Survey report
4. Invoice
5. Laporan kapal (ship's protest, ship's journal)
6. Lain-lain keterangan/ statement yang menyangkut losses
Apabila dokumen-dokumen tersebut dapat disediakan dan survey, tidak akan banyak mengalami kesulitan, ternyata tidak ada segi-segi negatif terhadap asuradeur dengan non-discolosure, pula asuradeur atas dasar good faith akan membayar kerugian tersebut.

Demikian juga terhadap claim khusus yang disebabkan karena act of god, force majeure, inhaerent vice atau vice propre.
jika claim umum yaitu claim yang sifatnya umum dan routine yaitu kerusakan-kerusakan atau kerugian-kerugian biasa/kecil, yang tidak melampui jutaan rupiah dan selalu timbul selama adanya proses traffic. Sebaliknya claim ex gratia ialah suatu jenis claim yang diselesaikan atas good faith dari pihak assuradeur.
Bahwa prinsip dagang harus dipegang teguh, namun dalam beberapa hal tertentu pihak assuradeur juga perlu memperlihatkan supelheid, dengan perhitungan-perhitungan ekonomis. Penyelesaian dengan bijaksana (damai) menyebabkan client sympatik yang tak mudah hilang.
Walaupun assuradeur tidak mendapat data-data yang cukup guna penyelesaian claim dengan adanya "good faith" mengadakan ganti rugi kurang dari retensi-nya, sebelumnya hal ini harus juga diberitahukan kepada induk kegiatan.

Akibat ketidaklengkapan dokumen-dokumen penting tersebut maka nilai ini atau situasi ini dinilai dengan outstanding yaitu berita-berita kekurangan pemenuhan kebutuhan oleh tertanggung kepada penaggung, misalnya premi yang belum dibayar atau kekurangan dokumen-dokumen pertanggungan atau adanya kecurigaan loyalitas tertangung.
Dalam penyelesaian claim, apabila terdapat dokumen-dokumen pembuktian yang kurang lengkap, atau data-data yang sudah datang dan diterima assuradeur, namun juag diselesaikan.
Dan bagi claim yang belum diselesaikan , yang masih dalam proses disebut sebagi pending claim. disebutkan sebagai pending claim yaitu claim yang mana masa perpanjangan dan belum selesai, sementara menunggu data-data guna pembuktian karena belum cukup atau belum lengkap, sehingga belum dapat diberikan ketentuan atas claim tersebut.

Dimaksud dengan outstanding losses yaitu berita-berita atas dasar data-data yang diperolehmengenai kehilangan atau kerugian.
kadang-kadang seseorang itu menghendaki agar claim atas losses yang timbul terhadap barang-barangnya diselesaikan selekas mungkin, dan karena keadaan terdesak, mereka menuntut agar dilakukan pembayaran-pembayaran cash, maka penyelesaian claim tersebut dinamakan Cash Losses.
Demi akrabnya hubungan tersebut, maka permintaan mana dipenuhi juga oleh assuradeur jika tidak lagi terdapat lain-lain kesulitan.

Retention Claim
Pertanggungan berdasarkan retention, berarti bahwa masing-masing akan menanggung ganti rugi hanya terbatas pada-batas-batas atau retensi jumlah pertanggungan yang telah ditentukan bersama menurut kemampun masing-masing. Jika masing-masing itu dengan good faith mengadakan kontrak ganti rugi kurang dari retensinya, maka sebelumnya hal itu supaya diberitahukan kepada induk kegiatan.
Kondisi-kondisi polis yang dipertimbangkan:
Dimaksud dengan kondisi polis yang dipertimbankan yaitu bahwa assuradeur baru membayar ganti rugi, jika benar-benar telah merupakan kewajibannya sebagai yang disebut dalam kontrak ganti rugi, sebagaimana yang dimaksud dengan syarat-syarat (clauses):
1. R.F.W.D
2. TPND
3. CD
4. FPA
5. WA
6. Franchise 3%
7. Sue & Labour clause
8. Single & cross liability
9. Litigation
10. Partial Losses
11. Warranties
12. Culpa in Eligendo
13. Institut War & Strikes Clause

R.F.W.D. = Rain Fresh Water Damage adalah kerusakan -kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh karena air hujan dan air tawar biasa.
T.P.N.D. = Theft Pilferage Non Delivery, adalah kekurangan atau kerugian yang disebabkan oleh adanya pecurian, perampokan yang kesemuaya ini telah mengakibatkan penyerahan barang tidak lengkap seluruh atau sebagiannya.
C.D. = Country Damage, adalah kerusakan-kerusakan yang timbul sejak dari asal barang tersebut.
F.P.A = Free From Paricular Average, artinya bahwa assuradeur hanya mengganti kerugian jika kerugian mana ditimbulkan oleh general average. Apabila kerugian-kerugian timbul hanya sebagian (particular), maka assuradeur bebas (free) dari mengganti keruian tersebut.
W.A. = With Average artinya dengan kerugian, juga umum dan juga khusus atau dengan lain kata "all risks"
Franchise 3% artinya apabila barang rusak 3% dari seluruh partai tersebut maka akan diganti, jika kurang dari 3% tidak akan diganti.

Istilah-istilah mana merupakan syarat -syarat yang dicantumkan dalam polis. Dapat juga ke dalam policy dicantumkan syarat sea-water, yang artinya bahwa air hujan adalah juga air tawar. Air laut juga menguap akan tetapi uap air mana mengandung zat garam.

Jadi yang dimaksud dengan ini adalah semua kerusakan yang disebabkan semata-mata air tawar dan akan dijadikan beban baginya. Sebab air asin atau air laut tidak bisa tidak harus menyentuh kapal. Seandainya timbul kerusakan karena air tawar insurer harus ganti, jika sebaliknya bebas, karena hujan jarang terdapat di laut.

Clause Theft Pilferage Non Delivery dicantumkan dalam policy, di mana dinyatakan bahwa asuransi tidak bertanggung jawab atas tidak diserahkannya seluruh atau sebagian dari barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan. Kesemuanya ini disebabkan akibat adanya pencuruianyang dilkukan buruh pelabuhan dan pilferage.
Country damage, merupakan syarat yang dicantumkan dalam polis, dalam mana assuradeur menyatakan bahwa apabila timbul kerugian atau kerusakan pada barang, yang ternyata berasal dari sejak berada di daerah asal penimbunannya (kota/negeri asal). Sebab dengan demikian assuradeur akan berusaha mencegah dalih "kans overeenkomst" yaitu maksud-maksud spekulasi dari tertanggung . Apapun bentuk kerusakan yang dicurigai berasal dari tempat penimbunan sebelum terlibat dalam manipulasi cargo handling.
Untuk mana dapat dibatasi dengan Free From Particular Average atau Wih Average dimana penanggung menyatakan hanya akan membayar kerugian seluruhnya yaitu dalam kondisi Free From Particular Average.

Sedangkan kondisi With Average , maka particular average atau inhaerent vice dan vice propre, terpaksa digolongkan ke dalam terminologi With average.
Sampai dimana maksud dan tujuan penanggung mengusahakan istilah with average ini adalah tergantung kepada kondisi kapal, muatan serta premi yang tinggi.
Dengan sendirinya premi harus tinggi, oleh karena sedikit saja kerusakan timbul, asuransi diharuskan membayarnya.

Contoh: separtai barang, misalnya tepung terigu, yang diusahakan agar tiba ke pelabuhan tujuan dengan selamat dan ikapalkan sebanyak 1000 kantong, jadi yang diserahkan nantinya juga harus berjumlah 1000 kantong. Apabila kekurangan 120 kantong maka ini berarti bahwa kerusakan yang mengakibatkan tidak diserahkannya barang sudah melampaui 30 buah kantong, maka 90 kantong sisa ini tidak diganti asuradeur.

Oleh karena itulah maka digunakan kondisi “franchise 3%”, yang artinya bahwa kerugian yang terjadi di bawah presentasi (3%), tidak akan dibayar penanggung, bahwa penanggung hanya akan membayar di atas 3%, maka dalam persoalan tersebut di atas asuradeur yang menggantikan 90 kantong saja.

Sue & Labour clause, adalah salah satu kondisi yang tercantum dalam polis dimana dinyatakan bahwa tertanggung berhak atas semua tindakan-tindakan (ongkos) pengembalian barang-barang yang rusak yang bukan disebabkan karena general average misalnya ongkos buruh dan biaya-biaya guna menemukan kembali barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan, kecuali terhadap resiko-resiko yang tidak dipertanggungkan, akan diganti oleh asuradeur misalnya Free From Particular Average.

Biaya-biaya yang dikeluarkan guna mengurangi resiko terhadap perils yang tidak diasuransikan, tidak akan dibenarkan oleh asuradeur.

Single & cross liability.
Adalah salah satu kondisi yang tercantum dalam polis, dimana dinyatakan bahwa tertanggung berhak atas semua tindakan (ongkos-ongkos) pengembalian barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan, maka single liability atau cross liability ini diatur dalam beberapa per-undang-undangan internasional seperti:
1. The Haque Rules.
2. York Antwerp Rules 1950.
3. Marine Insurance Act 1906.
4. Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Dagang Republik Indonesia.
Bahkan tidak jarang liabilities atau tanggung jawab yang dimaksud dalam perUndang-undangan tersebut di atas saling menunjuk pasal-pasal yang berlaku dalam hubungannya dengan kedua kontrak ini.
Misalnya Un-seaworthy dari kapal dan barang, telah juga merugikan insurer atas kelalaian nahkoda yang menimbulkan effect loss.
Dalam “single liabilities”, masing-masing pelaksana yang terikat dalam kontrak tersebut diatas. Pengangkut bertanggung jawab atas setiap koli barang yang diangkutnya, dilain pihak penanggung bertanggungjawab atas setiap penggantian rugi yang diakibatkan oleh sea-perils atas barang tersebut yang untuk perils ini ia dipertanggungkan.

Pada suatu peristiwa kedua unsur ini saling berhadapan, seperti yang nyata dalam “Cross – Liability” ini yaitu dalam B/L dijumpai kondisi “New Jason & Collision” clause.
Dalam asuransi laut, maka akan dijumpai dalam SIHF = Standard Indonesia Hull Form yang terdapat pada pasal pertama mengenai tabrakan kapal, dan dalam mana dinyatakan apabila kedua pihak sama-sama membuat kesalahan, maka masing-masing akan menanggung sesuai dengan kesalahan yang dibuatnya, dan team ahli akan diminta jasanya untuk penyelesaian dimaksud.

Litigation
Ialah cara peradilan mengenai claim yang tidak diterima oleh pihak insurer atau insured, dan diminta untuk naik banding, untuk kemudian diberikan keputusan oleh hakim, mislnya dalam hal collision, dimana asuradeur I menggugat bahwa kesalahan yang sebenarnya adalah terletak pada shipowner dari pihak lain.

Partial Loss
Adalah kerusakan atau kerugian nilai sebagian yang disebabkan karena sifat-sifat khusus dari barang misalnya inhaerent vice. Jika demikian maka anda akan bertanya apakah bedanya dengan Particular Average.
Particular Average menurut marine Insurance Act 1906, Inggris berarti sebagai berikut: pasal 64 (1):
“A Partticular average loss is a partial loss of the subject matter insured, caused by a peril insured against, and which is not a general average”

Jadi yang disebabkan bukan karena general average misalnya “theft pilferage, sedangkan partial loss menurut MIA 1906 dari kelima ayat, satu diantaranya menyebutkan sebagai berikut: pasal 56 (5):
“Where goods reach their destination in spacie, but not by reason of obliteration of marks, or otherwise, they are incapable of identification, the loss if any, is partial and total”

Dari pasal ini nyatalah bedanya bahwa partial loss disebabkan oleh kesalahan cargo handling (packing), sedangkan particular average adalah kerugian yang timbul akibat kekuatan atau pengaruh dari luar yang merusak barang.

Warranties
Adalah jaminan yang diberikan oleh penanggung atau kepada penanggung yang tercantum dalam polis atau dalam beberapap clauses yaitu bahwa pihak pemilik barang/kapal memberikan jaminan-jaminan misalnya kapal harus sea-worthiness.
Bahwa dalam penelitian yang dilakukan olh surveyor, penanggung dapat mengeluarkan syarat-syarat warranted free from particular average artinya jika kerusakan yang ditimbulkan karena strikes, tidak akan diganti oleh asuradeur. Jadi warrant disini artinya dengan jaminan menyanggupi dengan perbuatan. Seperti yang disebutkan dalam pasal 459 KUHD bahwa yang mencarter kapal berhak memeriksa keadaan kapal yang bersangkutan artinya bahwa kapal itu harus layak laut, namun lain halnya dengan Marine Insurance Act yang membedakan dalam beberapa warranties sebagai berikut:
1. Implied warranties.
2. No implied warranties.
3. Breach of warranty.
4. Culpa in Eligendo.
Kedudukan nahkoda yang terlepas dari sebagai pemilik kapal, maka atas kecurangan yang dilakukan oleh nahkoda dan awak kapal, antara tertanggung sebagai pemilik kapal dapat diperjanjikan dan penanggung akan menanggung resiko yang ditimbulkan oleh nahkoda yaitu bahwa dalam polis dapat disebutkan atas perbuatan kecurangan ini, pihak pemilik barang (kapal) tak dapat diminta pertanggungan jawabnya, namun penanggung dapat pula menolak pertanggungan demikian ini dan dapat diperjanjikan bahwa penanggung tidak bertanggungjawab dalam hal kecurangan nahkoda dan awak kapal.

Institute War & strikes Clause (Hull & Voyage)
Yang dimaksud dengan clause ini adalah bahwa penanggung memperinci resiko yang akan ditanggungnya. Institute diartikan sebagai daftar perincian resiko. Dalam clause mana mana penanggung menyatakan hanya akan menanggung reisko atas kapal dan barang yang disebabkan oleh penahanan yang bersifat permusuhan, dan bukan peperangan, pemboman torpedo laut dan strikes. Selain daripada itu soal perang yang membawa resiko pada kapal dan mauatn bukanlah soal insurer.

Dalam clause itu juga disamping kewajiban-kewajiban tersebut di atas, dicantumkan pula clause: NOTICE OF CANCELATION AND AUTOMATIC TERMINATION OF COVER, yaitu berkenaan dengan adanya peperangan antara rusia dan RRC maka asuransi ini secara otomatis gagal.
Pembatalan mana diberikan insurer maupun insured, dan mulai berlaku 14 hari setelah tanggal pemberitahuan. Untuk selanjutnya premi tidak dibayar, sampai diadakan lagi pembaharuan atas isi polis, hal mana tergantung kepada persetujuan yang dicapai kedua belah pihak.
Semua ongkos-ongkos yang dikeluarkan berkenaan dengan akibat-akibat perang, penahanan, penyitaan dan lain-lain tidak ditanggung penanggung. Jadi pengakuan insurer hal adanya kerugian karena permusuhan dan bukan molest, sehingga semua biaya-biaya yang dikeluarkan insured tidak dibenarkan insurer, kecuali sudah ada consensus antara kedua pihak dalam polis untuk maksud-maksud tersebut

Insurance Broker

2007-09-19T10:53:00.002-07:00

Makelar Asuransi

Pekerjaan makelar terdiri dari dan untuk kepentingan yang mengamanatkannya, beli dan jual barang, surat-surat berharga dan obliges, surat-surat wesel, surat perintah membayar, menyampaikan discompto, pertanggungan, persetujuan hutang uang oleh nahkoda, dan pemuatan kapal, uang gadai atau hal-hal lain semacamnya, demikian pasal 64 KUHD.
Jika diteliti, maka makelar sebagai seorang perantara dalam kegiatan niaga sangat dibutuhkan, yang mana ternyata dalam pasal tersebut bahwa semua kegiatan yang menyangkut bidang niaga seperti tersebut diatas dapat dilaksanakan melalui makelar atau perantara yang diangkat sumpahnya oleh pemerintah, Pengadilan negeri, atau presiden. Perantaraan yang diberikan makelar atas dasar tegen-prestasi provisi tidak bertanggung jawab atas keuangan.
Pengangkatan makelar secara umum, ialah untuk semua lapangan usaha atau dalam kata pengangkatannya dinyatakan dalam suatu lapangan atau dalam beberapa apangan tertentu ia boleh berusaha.

Dalam lapangannya atau beberapa lapangan usahanya yang ia makelari, ia tidak boleh berniaga atas biaya sendiri, baik oleh dirinya sendiri maupun dengan perantaraan orang lain atau bersama-sama dengan orang lain atau dengan komisi atau menjadi penjamin dalam perbuatan-perbuatan yang mereka adakan sebagai perantara.

Tugas-tugas makelar dalam asuransi laut adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Mengurus dokumen-dokumen pertanggungan yang menyangkut beban pertanggungan.
2. Menyelesaikan persoalan-persoalan yang kurang beres mengenai perantaraan yang diberikannya antara principal dan pihak ke III.

Makelar dalam menghadapai tugas-tugas dan kewajiban yang bersangkutan dengan pengantaraan yang diberikannya terutama masalah pertanggungan sebagai berikut:
1. Bertindak sebagai seorang atau badan hukum bagi kepentingan penanggung dan tertanggung, misalnya makelar harus menerima pembayaran premi atas polis dan menyerahkannya kepada penanggung.
2. Sebaliknya jika tertanggung jatuh pailit dan makelar belum juga membayar premi kepad penanggung, maka penanggung berhak menagihnya kepada makelar.
3. Dalam hal penanggung telah menerima premi dari makelar, polis tidak perlu diberikan makelar juga bertindak sebagai tertanggung atau pengganti tertanggung.
4. Jika tertanggung jatuh pailit, maka makelar berhak menagih kerugian yang masih harus dibayar penanggung terhadap tertanggung.
5. Makelar yang sudah terlebih dahulu memberikan ganti rugi kepada tertanggung yang kemudian jatuh pailit, untuk ini dapat ditagihnya kepada penanggung.

Jadi dengan kata lain, dapat dijelaskan bahwa makelar yang berfungsi sebagai pengantara, ia tidak melulu sebagai pengantara tapi ia juga sebagai wakil dari pihak penanggung dan tertanggung.
Semua resiko keuangan yang tidak dikeluarkan bagi kepentingan pengantara peransurasian akan ditanggung oleh kedua belah pihak misalnya penanggung belum mengganti kerugian yang diderita tertanggung, oleh makelar telah diberikan ganti rugi, maka kegiatan mana memberikan hak kepada makelar menagih penggantian rugi yang telah dikeluarkannya kepada tertanggung, penanggung wajib bayar kembali. Demikian pula sebaliknya bila makelar telah menerima premi dari tertanggung, maka kegiatan mana memberikan hak kepada penanggung untuk menagihnya sebelum ia memberikan polis.

Bahwa makelar akan membayar premi kepada penanggung seperti halnya ia sendiri sebagai tertanggung memenuhi kewajibannya kepada penanggung yaitu sebanyak premi yang diterimanya dari tertanggung, untuk segera pula dibayarkannya kepada penanggung.
Makelar biasanya memberikan perantara saja dan menerima provisi sebagai upahnya, namun dalam hal memberikan pengantaranya dalam keuangan tidak luput dari kegiatan transaksi yang diberikannya, sehingga tidak jarang makelar melakukan perhitungan keuangan. Segala sesuatu yang ditutupi makelar dipatuhi oleh setiap pesertanya, demikian pula tentang premi yang telah dibayar oleh makelar kepada penanggung, dianggap seolah-olah tertanggung yang melakukannya, misalnya dipertanggungkan harga asuransi USD 5000, dibayarkan dalam waktu 1 tahun, maka tiap bulannya dibayar USD 416,66.

Penanggung dalam hal ganti rugi apabila tidak dapat berita dari makelar tentang adanya pembayaran premi, tidak perlu mengadakan pembayaran ganti rugi, sebaliknya makelar harus segera melapor dan membayarkan premi yang telah dibayar tertanggung.

Apabila kontrak telah ditutupi, premi telah dibayar tertanggung kepada makelar belum juga membayarkannya kepada penanggung, maka resiko pembayaran ganti rugi tidak dapat dibebankan kepada penanggung, terkecuali ada lain-lain ketentuan dalam polis, karena demikian pasal 682 KUHD sebagai berikut:
“Jika premi dalam menandatangani polis, pertanggungan laut tidak dibayar, makelar yang jadi perantara dalam mengadakan pertanggungan, harus memenuhi hal itu sebagai hutangnya sendiri, sejauh ia tidak membuktikan bahwa premi sudah dilunasi olehnya kepada makelar, dalam semua hal kewajiban penanggung dipenuhi terhadap tertanggung. Makelar tidak bertanggungjawab terhadap premi jika dalam polis diperjanjikan bahwa premi tidak dibayar dengan segera”

Particular Average

2007-09-19T10:53:00.001-07:00

PARTICULAR AVERAGE

Particular Average adalah kerugian yang khusus yaitu resiko yang menimpa kapal atau barang dan yang disebabkan oleh satu diantara tiga peristiwa ini:
1. Kekuatan luar biasa (act of god).
2. Inhaerent vice.
3. Vice proper.
Kerugian yang timbul akan dibebankan kepada masing-masing interest, sebagaimana contoh yang disebutkan di atas ini.

Untuk mencegah meluasnya resiko yang menimpa kapal dan/atau barang, maka perlu adanya indakan-tindakan preventif yang seperti halnya dilakukan pada GA, maka dalam hal ini preventif dilakukan khusus pada barang atau kapal, termasuk di dalamnya freight dan sewa charter party.
Terdapat cara menghadapi resiko dalam particular Average:
1. Sea-perils
2. Tindakan-tindakan preventif
Kondisi inhaerent vice atau vice proper biasanya hanya terdapat dan berlaku pada cargo atau muatan kapal, dan tidak berlaku pada kapal serta alat-alat perlengkapannya. Sehingga untuk mencegah meluasnya kerusakan (average), maka sifat-sifat inhaerent vice dan vice proper, terpaksa dibuang ke dalam laut. Dikarenakan kerusakan hanya diderita oleh 1 barang, maka disebut kerusakan khusus atau kerugian hanya 1 pihak saja. Atau kapal kandas karena mismanagement of captain, kerusakan mana diperbaiki, dan ongkos-ongkso yang dikeluarkan tidak masuk general average melainkn particular average.

Kerugian-kerugian yang digolongkan sebagai particular average adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Semua kerusakan dan kehilangan yang diderita kapal atau muatan karena taufn, penyerobotan, kecelakaan atau kandas dengan tak sengaja.
2. Upah dan biaya peneylamatan
3. Kehilangan dan kerusakan seling, sauh, tali manila, layar dan peralatan kapal lainnya.
4. Biaya tuntutan, dan pemeliharaan dan gaki nahkoda dan awak kapal selama diajukan tuntutan, jika yang ditahan atau kapal atau muatan.
5. Perbaikan khusus pada pembungkusan dan biaya pertolongan terhadap muatan yang rusak, sepanjang ini bukan akibat langsung dari suatu kecelakaan yang menimbulkan awar umum.
6. Biaya transshipment cargo, jika persetujuan pemuatan gagal akibat kapalnya rusak berat.
7. Pada umumnya, semua kerusakan, kehilangan, dan biaya-biaya yang tidak disebabkan atau diperbuat dengan sengaja dan untuk keselamatan kapal dan muatan. Tapi yang diderita oleh atau diperbuat untuk kepentingan kapal saja, atau untuk muatan saja dan yang oleh karenanya tidak termasuk average.

Jika kapal dengan keadaan tempat selalu kering, dangkal atau ada bagian tanah yang menonjol ke atas, dengan muatan penuh, tak dapat berlayar baik dari tempat darimana harus berangkat, maupun ke tempat yang dituju, dan dengan demikian barang-barang harus dibawa dengan kapal-kapal kecil, maka biaya-biaya untuk kapal-kapal kecil tersebut tak dapat dianggap sebagai average.

Jika kapal yang dipertanggungkan rusak, disebabkan karena kecelakaan laut penanggung hanya menanggung 2/3 biaya yang diperlukan untuk perbaikan, dengan tidak mengingat apakah tidak diperbaiki atau tidak dan hal itu sesuai dengan imbangan antara bagian yang dipertanggungkan dengan yang tidak dipertanggungkan sepertiga jadi tanggungan tertanggung, berdasarkan dari lama menjadi baru.

Pertanggungan General Average dan penanggungannya
Perhitungan dan pembagian awar dilakukan di tempat berakhirnya pelayaran, kecuali untuk ini diperjanjikan lain.
Awar umum ditanggung sebagai berikut:
1. Oleh harga kapal, dalam kedaan setibanya di tempat, ditambah dengan ganti ugi yang diterima denga adanya GA.
2. Oleh angkatan, dengan diurangi gaji ada pemeliharaan nahkoda dan crew kapal.
3. Oleh harga barang, yang pada waktu terjadi kerugian, berada di kapal atau di kapal-kapal kecil atau kapal-kapal lain atau yang sebelum terjadi kecelakaan karena terpaksa dilempar ke laut dan diganti atau yang harus dijual untuk menutup biaya awar, disesuaikan dengan kurs setempat.

Barang-barang yang dimuat di geladak kapal, turut menanggung kerugian, jika tetap utuh. Kalau nahkoda diluar pengetahuannya atau ijin yang memuatkan menempatkan barang-barang digeladak, dan dilempar ke laut atau rusak karena pelemparan, maka yang memuatkan berhak akan penggantian, kecuali tuntutan dari semua yng berkepentingan terhadap kapal da nahkoda.
Jika barang karena kesalahan atau perbuatan yang memuatkan atau yang menjualkan hilang, mereka turut menanggung awar umum.

2007-09-19T10:53:00.000-07:00

Bagaimana cara untuk mengadakan atau mengajukan Awar Umum (general Average)?
Cara-cara untuk mengadakan awar umu adalah sebagai berikut:
1. Oleh nahkoda dan tema ahli harus mengajukan permintaan, bahwa team ahli haruslah yang disumpah oleh pengadilan sebelum melakukan tugas-tugasnya.
2. Mengumpulkan semua bahan-bahan atau data-data laporan perjalanan kapal pada saat melakukan pelayaran yang bersangkutan.
3. Mengumpulkan konosemen dan data-data kalkulasi harga barang saat kerugian terjadi.
4. Tunduk pada undang-undang setempat berlaku.
5. Apabila tuntutan dibenarkan oleh ahli, amka awar dibayar oleh asuradeur.

Bahwa awar umum timbul sebagai akibat dari resiko laut, oleh karena mana proses timbulnya sea-perils ini perlu dilakukan pembuktian tertentu yang menyangkut operasi pelayaran di saat terjadinya kerugian, dalam laporan mana proses tersebut dijelaskan oleh keterangan-keterangan dari nahkoda berdasarkan ship’s journal dan ship’s protest sebagai alat pembuktian yang tepat dn dikuatkan oleh hukum.

Ship’s journal mencatat berita-berita pelayaran dan situasi buruk yang menimpa kapal dimulai dari permulaan pelayaran hingga mengakhiri pelayarannya di pelabuhan tertentu. Catatan mana antara lain tentang berita cuaca muatan dan pemadatannya, kapan timbul taufan, posisi kapal dijelaskan dan dalam saat kritis, langkah-langkah apa saja yang dilakukan nahkoda guna keselamatan kapal muatan dan penumpang.
Ship’s protest mencatat bahwa nahkoda tidak menerima tuduhan-tuduhan sebab dan akibat yang timbul pada barang, karena berada di luar tanggung jawabnya, misalnya barang-barang rusak pada waktu sebelum mencapai taket sling kapal dan karena kerusakan atas barang disebabkan oleh longshoremen.

Bahwa para ahli yang disumpah akan imintai mengsurvey serta memberikan ketentuan duduknya perkara, dan menyatakan bahwa misalnya kerusakan itu akan dibayar asuradeur, maka tindakan selanjutnya adalah mengadakan perhitungan dengan mengecek barang dan haga sehat/rusak.
Ataukah akan dibayar seluruhnya harga barang itu oleh asuradeur atau hanya membayar kerusakan, maka konosemen dan market price dipergunakan sebagai pedoman penyelesaian, jika telah rampung maka insured akan mendapat pembayaran ganti rugi.

Apakah salvage dapat dimasukkan sebagai general average?
Salvage adalah petolongan yang diberikan oleh sesuatu badan usaha yang khusus mengerjakan pekerjaan menarik kapal di laut, yaitu bagi kapal-kapal yang terkenal sea-perils, atau dengan lain kata salvage merupakan salah satu kegiatan di laut, dimana khusus pertolongan yang diberikan oleh sebuah kapal yang beroperasi dengan maksud untuk menyelamatkan suatu kapal yang sedang dalam kesulitan (kandas/tenggelam). Dapat juga terjadi bahwa pertolongan yang diberikan oleh sebuah kapal yang kebetulan lewat atau sedang berada disekitarnya, ketika menerima berita S.O.S., kapal mana lalu memberikan pertolongan dan mengemas muatan atau penumpang untuk berpindah ke lain kapal atau ke kapal yang memberikan pertolongan. Semua biaya dan tindakan-tindakan yang diambil dalam general average oleh kegiatan salvage akan dimasukkan sebagai beban general average.

Akan tetapi biasanya salvage adalah suatu perusahaan yang berdiri sendiri misalnya di Inggris perusahaan salvage “The Liverpool and Glasgow Salvage Association”, telah betul-betul menjalankan spesialisasi di bidang salvage dan memiliki peralatan khusus serta ahli-ahli (expert salvage officers), cargo surveyors, carpenter, divers, salvage engineers, riggers dan lain-lain.
Perusahaan mana memasang iklan agar dapat diketahui oleh semua perusahaan-perusahaan pelayaran, dimana sewaktu-waktu mereka dapat berhubungan untuk mendapatkan pertolongan.

Untuk mana Lloyd’s Underwriter telah membuka suatu perjanjian antara para pengusaha salvage atau salvagers atas dsar salvage agreement, yang diformulir oleh Lloyd’s Underwriter dalam bentuk “LLOYD’S FORM OF SALVAGE AGREEMENT”, sebagai suatu kontrak antara tiap-tiap perusahaan-perusahaan pelayaran dengan salvage enterprice. Dalam salvage agreement mana nahkoda dari kapal yang rusak menyatakan kesediaannya untuk menutup kontrak salvage dengan salvage enterprice dengan menyatakan bersedia untuk membayar salvage.
Di Indonesia salvage activity belum begitu maju, yang mana seyogyanya harus mendapat perhatian khusus sebagai negara maritime, namun hal ini belum dapat dilakukan secara efficient karena belum tersedia cukup ahli, suku cadang dan peralatan khususnya.
Salvage dapat dimasukkan sebagai general average atau dengan dibebankan kepada pembayaran general average salvage baru ada, karena kapal tak berdaya sama sekali untuk bergerak akibat adanya sea-perils. Salvage dilakukan baik oleh pemilik kapal itu sendiri atau oleh lain-lain kegiatan diluar owner, namun membutuhkan ongkos-ongkos (expenditures), dan pengeluaran-pengeluaran ini yang ada sangkut pautnya dengan akibat-akibat general average, dibebankan kepada general average hal ini jelas terdapat dalam general Rule A dari york Antwerp Rules 1950 dan rule V.

Sistership Salvage
Yaitu pertolongan atau pengangkatan (lightning) sebuah kapal dari dasar laut, yang dilakukan oleh kapal-kapal yang dioperasikan oleh perusahaan yang sama. Kadang-kadang ongkos/biaya yang dikeluarkan ini, shipowner dapat menagihnya kepada underwriter, yaitu terhadap semua biaya-biaya yang telahdikeluarkan berkenaan dengan pengangkatan kapal yang bersangkutan.
Jadi misalnya maskapai pelayaran A memiliki 5 buah kapal barang (cargo vessel), satu diantaranya terdampar dan rusak berat. Kemudian maskapai itu sendiri langsung menggunakan sebuah kapal tunda miliknya sendiri untuk menolong dan menyelamatkan kapal tersebut serta ditariknya ke pelabuhan dan docking disana.

Menurut undang-undang Salvage Act 1912 menyatakan sebagai berikut:
“The right to remuneration for assistance or salvage shall not be effected by common ownership of the vessels rendering and receiving such assistance or salvage service”.
Kemudian ada perubahan karena suatu kondisi “new Jason clause”, sebagi berikut:
“If salving ship is owned or operated by the carrier, salvage shall be paid for as fully and ini the same manner as if such salving ship or ships belonged to strangers”

Apakah Towage juga dimasukkan sebagai GA?
Yang dimaksud dengan towage adalah bahwa sebuah kapal yang telah tidak berdaya sama sekali ditarik ke pelabuhan perbaikan. Sebenarnya towage dan salvage hampir sama, hanya satu segi yang boleh dikatakan kelebihannya adalah bahwa salvage itu lebih luas pekerjaannya atau daerah operasinya daripada towage. Towage atau salvage adalah pertolongan yang diberikan untuk menghela (tow) dan menarik dan mengangkat kapal yang tenggelam adalah kegiatan salvaging. Bahwa antara kedua pengertian telah diadakan semacam pembagian kerja yaitu terhadap kapal-kapal yang tidak berdaya ke luar dari kesulitannya (kandas, tenggelam)dan ditarik ke galangan untuk diperbaiki.

Kedua tugas ini dilakukan dalam rangka menyelamatkan kapal akan tetapi pekerjaan dari salvager adalah lebih berat daripada towage.
Apakah towage dapat dimasukkan ke dalam kategori GA, adalah tergantung kepada sebab akibatnya bagi kapal, sehingga kapal perlu ditarik. Jika disebabkan oleh adanya force majeure yang dinyatakan GA oleh nahkoda, maka towage expenditure dibebankan kepada pos GA.

Siapa yang berwenang menyatakan GA?
Yang berwenang menyatakan general average adalah nahkoda kapal. Hal ini logis, apabila nahkoda dibebani tanggung jawab dalam memberikan pernyataan general average, sebagai pimpinan di atas kapal.
Namun demikian selaku pimpinan ia juga diberikan pembantu-pembantu guna menyelidiki apakah memang benar suatu klimaks dari suatu situasi telah memuncak, sehingga terdesak untuk memberikan sesuatu statement atau pernyataan kepada pihak-pihak yang bersangkutan (shipowner, consignees nor shippers and or insurer).

Walaupun dijaman dahulu nahkoda adalah pemilik kapal dan juga sebagai pedagang barang, yang mana otomatis ia berhak dan berwenang, ini bukan berarti bahwa dijaman modern dimaa nahkoda berdiri sendiri dan bukan lagi sebagai pemilik kapal dan seorang pedagang, maka tanggung jawab kepada pihak-pihak yang disebut di atas tidaklah secara persoonlijk, melainkan secara kolektif.

Andaikata di bawah dari laporan atas statement tertanda nahkoda kapal, namun bahan-bahan guna penyusunan statement tersebut diperolehnya dari para perwira kapal baik lisan maupun tertulis, tidak terkecualiketerangan-keterangan penting dari anggota crew lainnya.
Bahwa diantara nahkoda dan anak buah kapal harus ada pesesuaian pendapat mengenai sesuatu peristiwa indemnity, sekalipun dialah yang memiliki hak veto atas kapal serta keselamatannya.
Terkadang juga “First officer” memberikan laporan bahwa kapal seharusnya dinayatakan general average, akan tetapi setelah diperhatikan dan diteliti oleh nahkoda diperoleh lain pendapat bahwa keadaan dan situasi kapal belum dapat dikatakan atau dianggap sebagai general average, misalnya sebagai berikut:
Muatan kapal demikian penuh, tepat pada batas sarah/draft kapal 26 kaki. Tiba-tiba kapal dilanda taufan, teh rusak kena air, sebagiannya oleh air laut. First officer menyatakan akan adanya general average namun nahkoda membatahnya dan menyatakan itu bukan general average melainkan particular average (PA).

Apakah sebabnya nahkoda menyatakan bahwa itu adalah Particular average, yaitu karena nahkoda mempunyai dugaan kuat atas hasil surveynya sendiri mengenai kondisi pemadatan dan penimbunan (stapel) muatan dalam palka kapal telah demikian rapih, namun teh tersebut telah memberikan udara panas tatkala nahkoda mengeceknya kembali dalam keadaan basah/rusak.
Teh yang kurang kering betul akan menimbulkan proses kimia, terutama apabila tertimbun dalam ruangan tertutup yang kurang penyaluran udaranya (ventilasi) dimana udara penyaluran tidak lancar.

Apa saja yang tidak dapat dimasukkan sebagai average?
Yang tidak dapat dimasukkan sebagai average atau awar adalah semua kerugian-kerugian yang timbul bukan disebabkan karena keadaan luar biasa atau karena keadaan khusus, melainkan suatu kejadian routine yang lazimnya timbul dalam masa-masa manipulasi cargo-handling, misalnya pencurian yang dilakukan oleh awak kapal atau buruh pelabuhan, pecahnya barang akibat bantingan (undue-dilligence), negligence (pasal III ayat 2a-q The Haque Rules).

Sebagaimana dijelaskan dihalaman terdahulu, bahwa average adalah ditimbulkan oleh keadaan luar biasa (extraordinary) sebagai disebut pasal 69 KUHD.
“Semua biaya luar biasa untuk kepentingan kapal dan barang dibuat bersama-sama atau sendiri-sendiri; semua kerugian yang menimpa kapal dan barang selama jangka waktu yang ditentukan tentang mulai dan berakhirnya bahaya, dianggap sebagai awar”

Jadi keadaan yang luar biasa saja yang dianggap sebagai awar, berarti keadaan yang bukan luar biasa tidak dapatdianggap sebagai awar. Ini tidaklah berarti bahwa apa yang disebut oleh pasal-pasal haque rules kecuali act of god tidak dapat dijadikan bahan perhitungan average.
Claim atas resiko-resiko yang timbul selama pelaksanaan routine cargo handling dapat diasuransikan, tetapi tak dapat digolongkan sebagai kerugian average.

Ini tidak berarti resiko-resiko mana tidak dapat diasuransikan, dalam dunia pelayaran internasional, telah dibentuk suatu badan organisasi yang sebenarnya juga berfungsi sebagai asuransiyaitu P & I club.

General Average

2007-09-19T10:27:00.002-07:00

GENERAL AVERAGE

General average adalah kerugian umum yaitu yang menimpa kapal dan peralatannya serta barang-barangnya seluruh atau sebagian, atau pengrusakan yang dilakukan dengan sengaja dan semua biaya-biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk itu, guna menyelamatkan kapal dari sea-perils atau force majeure. Kerugian mana akan dibebankan kepada masing-masing pihak sebanding dengan nilai-nilai interestnya.
Dalam hal ini apabila kapal berada di pelabuhan muat atau sedang berlabuh atau sedang melakukan pelayarannya menuju ke pelabuhan bongkaran, medapat bahaya sebagai dimaksud dalam contingency clause, misalnya:
1. Badai atau taufan
2. Peperangan
3. Musuh masyarakat (rampok)
4. Sabotase buruh
5. Bahaya perairan membeku jadi es
Maka kapal akan mengambil langkah-langkah preventif untuk menyelamatkan kapal dan isinya antara lain sebagai berikut:

SEA PERILS:
1. Kapal bocor, karam, kandas etc.
2. Bombardment, torpedo, ranjau laut.
3. Perampokan, bajak laut.
4. Laut membeku.
5. Terpaksa melakukan deviatie terhadap sea-perils tersebut di atas.

Tindakan-tindakan preventif:
1. Melempar muatan dai dek ke dalam laut, bila perlu membuang muatan dari dalam palka.
2. Memotong atau melepaskan bagian-bagian dari kapal untuk meringankan kapal misalnya selain muatan juga bagian-bagian peralatan kapal seperti tiang-tiang, layar bunker dan peralatan kapal lainnya.
3. Menghindarkan kapal dari laut yang akan beku, seraya meninggalkan pelabuhan atau membuang muatan ke laut dan menuju ke pelabuhan yang aman.
4. Meninggalkan pelabuhan karena peperangan, queen’s enemy, sabotase buruh pelabuhan.
5. Mengeluarkan ongkos-ongkos untuk mensukseskan preventif acts.

Dari adanya sea perils, seperti force majeure telah menyebabkan berbagai peristiwa perusakan terhadap ship’s parts antara lain:
1. Baling, kemudi kapal.
2. Kebocoran pada body kapal pipa-pipa air, minyak, ventilasi.
3. Jetisons of cargoes.
4. Patah as duduk, spare parts motor induk, metal dan blok metal pecah.

Jadi akibat adanya sea perils, maka dilakukanlah tindakan-tindakan preventif dan harus berhasil, jika tidak, tidak dapat dikatakan sebagai general average. Hal mana dinyatakan sebagai total loss atau constructive total loss.
Misalnya kapal bocor besar, maka untuk meringankan kapal dilakukanlah jettison of cargoes into sea, dan jika tindakan ini berhasil segera diumumkan sebaai general average statement.

Actual Total Loss dan Constructive Total Loss

Actual total loss adalah kerugian total atas sebuah kapal yang dipertanggungkan hilang sama sekali, misalnya sebagai berikut:
Sebuah kapal x yang dalam pelayaran dari London menuju ke benua Amerika dalam mengarungi laut lepas Atlatic, telah terjadi malapetaka akibat taifun/hurricane, telah menabrak gumpalan es yang demikian besar, karena bagian atas dari gumpalan es situ hanya muncul sedikit dipermukaan air, hampir tidak kelihatan, dan sebagian besar lainnya berada di bawah prmukaan air laut. Hal mana telah mengakibatkan tabrakan haluan kapal dengan es rusak berat, air mengalir terus masuk sampai ke ketel uap dan bagian dari kapal itu lalu meledak.
Berbagai usaha telah dilakukan, namun tidak berdaya juga, dan kapal terus masuk tenggelam perlahan-lahan ke dalam air, ingat kapal pesiar “Titanic”, maka yang demikian itu disebut sebagai “Actual total loss”

Constructive Total Loss, merupakan kerugian dan/atau kehilangan seluruhnya dari kapal atau barang, akan tetapi mengenai construction kapal saja, dan bahwa kapal tidak hilang tenggelam ke dasar laut.
Bahwa kerugian yang timbul belum sempat meluaskan bencana, dan betul kapal rusak, akan tetapi tidak semuanya bagian dari kapal mutlak rusak, tetapi masih terdpat adanya kemungkinan-kemungkinan melakukan perbaikan.
Jadi loss total, tetapi masih nampak pada permukaan air laut, misalnya karena terdampar atau karam, maka dalam hal ini kapal mana secara keseluruhan tidak mampu sama sekali dan untuk mengembalikan lagi kemungkinan untuk dipakai, baru dapat, setelah dilakukan perbaikan seperlunya.

Yang dimaksud tidak mampu yaitu tenaga penggeraknya telah rusak dan tidak terpakai lagi, sedangkan body/hull tidak memungkinkan untuk dipakai muatan, karena bocor, pecah, atau sobek salah satu dari bagian dinding kapal. Akan tetapi setelah dilakukan lagi perbaikan baru kapal tersebut dapat dipergunakan sebagaimana mestinya, dan biasanya kondisi seperti ini di abandonir.

Secara terperinci, general average atau awar umum adalah semua kerugian yang timbul dalam hal-hal sebagai berikut:
1. Semua yang diberikan kepada musuh atau bajak laut untuk membebaskan atau menebus kapal dan muatan.
2. Semua benda yang dilemparkan ke laut atau dipakai habis untuk keselamatan umum, atau untuk kapal atau muatan.
3. Tali, besi, tiang, layer dan lain-lain alat yang untuk tujuan dimaksud dipotong atau dirusak dan/dibuang ke laut.
4. Jangkar, tali dan lain-lain barang yang untuk tujuan yang sama terpaksa ditinggalkan didalam laut.
5. Kerugian yang menimpa barang-barang yang masih dalam kapal timbul karena pelemparan ke laut.
6. Kerusakan yang dengan sengaja ditimbulkan pada badan kapal untuk memudahkan pelemparan dan pemindahan ke dalam kapal kecil atau menyelamatkan barang-barang, atau untuk melancarkan pengeluaran air dan kerugian yang ditimbulkan pada barang muatan karena air tersebut.
7. Penjagaan, penyembuhan, pemeliharaan, dan penggantian kerugian semua orang yag berada di dalam kapal, yang dalam mempertahankan kapal mendapat luka atau cacat badan.
8. Penggantian kerugian atau pemberian makan pada mereka yang bekerja pada kapal dan barang yang dikirim ke laut atau ke darat, diambil ditawan atau dijadikan budak belian.
9. Gaji dan pemeliharaan nahkoda dan awak kapal selama kapal terpaksa berada di pelabuhan darurat.
10. Biaya pandu laut dan lain-lain biaya pelabuhan yang harus dibayar pada keluar dan masuk dari dank e pelabuhan darurat.
11. Sewa gudang dan tempat penyimpanan untuk menumpuk baran-barang yang selama dalam perbaikan di pelabuhan darurat tak dapat tetap berada di kapal.
12. Biaya tuntutan, jika kapal dan muatan ditahan atau dipaksa berlayar ketujuan lain dan dua-duanya dituntut oleh nahkoda.
13. Gaji dan pemeliharaan nahkoda dan awak kapal selama tuntutan berjalan, jika kapal dan muatan dibebaskan.
14. Biaya pemborongan, upah pemindahan ke kapal kecil, termasuk biaya membawa kapal ke dalam pelabuhan atau sungai, jika kapal karena taufan, pengejaran oleh musuh atau bajak laut atau karena sebab-sebab lain untuk menyelamatkan kapal dan muatan terpaksa untuk berbuat itu, juga hilangnya atau rusaknya barng-barang karena terpakasa, dalam kapal-kapal kecil atau kapal-kapal dan pembuatan kembali dalam kapal.
15. Kerusakan yang ditimbulkan pada kapal, atau pada muatan atau pada dua-duanya, jika kapal untuk menghindarkan penyerobotan atau tenggelam dengan sengaja dikandaskan di pantai, sama juga jika hal demikian dilakukan karena bahaya lain yang sangat mengancam untuk menyelamatkan kapal dan muatan.
16. Biaya untuk dapat mengapungkan kembali kapal yang dikandaskan seperti tersebut diatas ini dan upah untuk pertolongan-pertolongan yang diberikan untuk itu, juga semua upah untuk pertolongan pada kapal dan muatan yang diberikan ketika dalam bahaya.
17. Kerugian atau kerusakan yang diderita oleh barang-barang, dalam keadaan terpaksa, yang dimuat ke dalam kapal-kapal kecil atau kapal-kapal termasuk bagian dari awar umum yang harus dibayar oleh barang-barang itu pada kapal-kapal kecil dan sebaliknya kerugian atau kerusakan baran-barang yang masih ada dalam kapal yang ditolong, dan pada kapal itu sendiri terjadi sesudah pemindahan ke kapal kecil, sejauh kerusakan tersebut termasuk dalam awar umum.
18. Gaji dan pemeliharaan nahkoda dan para kelasi, jika kapal, sesudah mulai berlayar, tertahan oleh negara asing atau karena pecah perang, selama kapal dan muatan tidak dibebaskan dari semua perikatan timbal balik.
19. Premi untuk mempertanggungkan biaya, termasuk awar umum, atau kerugian yang diderita karena penjualan sebagian dari muatan dalam pelabuhan darurat, dengan maksud untuk menutup awar umum.
20. Biaya untuk memeriksa dan menentukan awar umum.
21. Biaya, termasuk di dalamnya gaji tambahan dan pemeliharaan nahkoda da awak kapal, ditimbulkan karena karantina sebagai hal yang luar biasa dan dalam mengadakan persetujuan pemuatan tak diperkirakan, sejauh kapal dan barang-barang yang dimuat terkenal olehnya.
22. Pada umumnya, semua kerusakan yang karena terpaksa, ditimbulkan dengan sengaja dan diderita sebagai akibat langsung dari itu dan biaya yang dalam keadaan sama dikeluarkan untuk penyelamatan dan kepentingan kapal.

General average Expenditures & GA Sacrifices
GA Expenditures adalah ongkos-ongkos yang dibebankan atau dikeluarkan sebagai akibat adanya Act of God atau Force majeure, misalnya karena ombak keras, bocor sehingga terpaksa menuju ke pelabuhan darurat untuk menyelamatkan kapal, dan semua biaya-biaya yang dikeluarkan untuk ongkos pelabuhan (light & harbour dues) dan biaya-biaya muat bongkar (stevedoring).

GA sacrifices adalah ongkos-ongkos yang dikeluarkan sebagai akibat adanya pengeluaran-pengeluaran darurat (terpaksa) dilakukan karena perlakuan kekerasan untuk menyelamatkan kapal itu sendiri, misalnya ongkos-ongkos untuk memotong tiang kapal besi dengan las dan lain-lain.
Mengenai GA ini seorang ahli Amerika Leslie J. Buglass dalam judul bukunya general Average & York Antwerp Rules 1950, memberikan 2 garis pokok dalam general average sebagai berikut:
1. Ongkos-ongkos yang ada sangkut pautnya dengan GA (GA expenditures)
2. Langkah-langkah untuk mencegah meluasnya risks (GA Sacrifices)

ad.1
General average dalam York Antwerp Rules pada pasal-pasal I ayat 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 berisi antara lain pasal I. nakhoda dibenarkan mengeluarkan biaya-biaya untuk kepentingan kapal, yang diakibatkan oleh force majeure dan semua biaya-biaya yang dikeluarkan nahkoda sehingga ia dan kapalnya dapat kembali ke pelabuhan asalnya.
Ayat 8: biaya lighterage, lightning dan re-shipping.
Ayat 10: ongkos-ongkos pelabuhan darurat
Ayat 11: baiay-biaya dan upah pemeliharaan crew
Ayat 12: khusus bagi para perwira kapal (master & officers) digolongkan sebagai general average
Ayat 14: perbaikan sementara (temporary repairs) di port of refugee (pelarian).

ad.2.
Dengan adanya tindakan-tindakan sacrifices ini, bahwa kapal atau muatan harus berhasil diselamatkan dengan setiap tindakan apapun bentuknya yaitu bahwa:
1. Barang-barangtersebut membahayakan (the property must be imperil).
2. Perlakuan kekerasan harus dibuat dengan sengaja (sadar).
3. Perlakuan kekerasan harus dilakukan dan berhasil.
4. Perlakuan kekerasan (sacrifices) dilakukan dengan adil (reasonable).
5. Perlakuankekerasan harus dilakukan dalam keadaan abnormal.

Misalnya:
1. Voluntary stranding.
2. Shipsmaterials & stores burnt for fuel.
3. Sacrifices of anchor & chains.
4. Jettison of cargo.
5. Biaya menempatkan alat pemadam kebakaran.
Sesungguhnya antara GA Expenditures dan GA Sacrifices terdapat perbedaan spesifik dalam suatu General Average yaitu bahwa sacrifices akan merupakan pengorbanan material, baik yang dilakukan secara kasar maupun secara halus, dan yang juga dengan konsekwensi keuangan.
Sebaliknya Expenditures dalam hal GA jelas bahwa dari peralatan tersebut adalah pengeluaran-pengeluaran biaya dalam GA dengan maksud untuk menyelamatkan kepentingan umum.
Sebagaimana telah dijelaskan di muka bahwa tindakan operative preventive adalah sacrifices dan tindakan-tindakan administratif adalah tindakan-tindakan Expenditures yaitu pembayaran biaya-biaya.

Dalam hal melakukan tindakan yang bersifat paksaan (sacre), kadang-kadang dilakukan pembayaran cash atas sacrifices, karena biasanya tindakan preventive sacre dilakukan sebelum ada approach dengan pihak keuangan. Baru setelah sacre dilakukan demi penyelamatan kepentingan umum, expenditure diperhitungkan berapapun besarnya.
Jika orang harus terlebih dahulu memperhitungkan Expenditures, tentu sekali sacre belum dapat dilakukan. Pilihan jatuh pada penyelamatan kepentingan umum dengan syarat harus berhasil, jika tidak ia harus memintakan abandonemen.

Yang dimaksud denga berhasil disini adalah bahwa GA dapat betul-betul secara nyata dan orisinildan selamat dari malapetaka (total loss), berapapun ongkosnya.
Nahkoda dalam hal ini dengan pembantu-pembantunya para mualim menganalisa dan mengeluarkan pernyataan adanya GA sacrifices, akan tetapi antara mengambil keputusan dan saat dinyatakan GA sacrifices telah dapat dilangsungkan, demi keselamatan kapal & muatan. Karena dalam saat menghadapi bahaya atau dalam keadaan panic atau dalam keadaan tidak genting, namun demi keselamatan kapal & muatan, bila perlu sacrifices dilakukan juga.
Dalam hak GA Expenditures, maka tindakan kekerasan hampir tidak ada, karena melulu merupakan tindakan admisnistratif misalnya pembayaran-pembayaran:
1. Lighterage
2. Stevedorage
3. Disbursment
4. Salvage, harbour dues

Abandonment

2007-09-19T10:27:00.001-07:00

ABANDONEMEN

Adalah sutu bukti pernyataan yang diberikan oleh tertanggung (assured) kepada penanggung (insurer), dalam hal mana assured manyatakan agar benda yang dipertanggunggannya itu yang pada waktu kena atau tidak kena seaperils, menerima sejumlah harga yang sebanding dengan harga barang tersebut tanpa syarat dari insurer.
Kata abandonemen berarti menyerahkan atau meninggalkan, maka dalam asuransi laut abanonemen itu baru terjadi apabila pihak pemilik barang atau assured memilih 2 alternatif yaitu menerima kapal yang baru:
1. Dengan memperbaiki kapal yang rusak akibat sea perils
2. Dengan memperoleh ganti rugi (harga kapal) seluruhnya pada saat sea perils tersebut berakhir.

Bahwa tertanggung baru akan menyatakan abandonemen yang diajukan kepada insurer, apabila kapal milik tersebut pada pendapatnya terlau repot untuk mengadakan perbaikan,, atau jika toh perbaikan dilakukan akan menimbulkan biaya yang demikian besar hingga dapat melampaui harga kapal baru, sehingga dengan demikian ia memilih untuk menjualnya atau memintakan kepada insurer agar harga kapal tersebut dibayarkan kepadanya (insured) dengan nilai pada saat berakhirnya sea-perils.
Dengan berakhirnya sea perils dan adanya abandonmen, yang merupakan penyerahan hak milik seharga nilai yang ditentukan oleh arbiter itu, berhak atas peyerahan milik kapal tersebut untuk diperbaiki atau dipakai dan lain-lain.

Andaikata pemilik kapal A, kapalnya bertabrakan dengan lain kapal B dan dalam proses verbal dinyatakan kapal B bersalah, maka penaggung setelah mambayar abandonemen mempunyai hak yaitu untuk menagih kepada pihak yang bersalah yang telah menimbulkan kerusakan.
Tetapi bagaimana jika:
1. A & B mempertanggungkan kepada asuradeur yang sama
2. A mempunyai mempertanggungkan assurdeur yang tidak sama dengan B.
Jika A dan B mempunyai assuradeur yang sama, maka system clearing dapat membatnu menyelesaikannya, artinya akan dipindahkan selisihnya dalam kalkulasi ganti rugi kepada A dan B.
Akan tetapi sekiranya A mempunyai assuradeur tersendiri, maka asuradeurnya setelah menggati kerugian kepada A, lalu menagih kepada B yang lalu menunjuk assuadeur B untuk membayar ganti rugi tersebut, sehingga antara para assuradeur sajalah yang menyelesaikan masalah ini.

Sehubungan dengan haknya tertanggung untuk menuntut sejumlah uang trtntu dari penanggung untuk melakukan segala daya upaya (perbaikan kapal), bahwa daya upaya tidak dapat dilakukan secara sepihak, dan dalam hal ini tidak mungkin untuk mengadakan rundingan sebelumnya dengan insurer, namun insurer juga ingin mengetahui perinciannya.

Moratoire Interest
Dimaksud disini ialah bahwa kerugian yang nyatanya timbul setelah berakhirnya jangka waktu asuransi, maka segala yang diterima insured harus dikembalikan kepada insurer.
Jika kapal atau muatan tidak diasuransikan menurut harga penuh dan benda itu hanya tertimpa sebgaian bencana, maka hanya dapat di abandonemen berdasarkan imbangan antara benda yang diasuransikan dan benda yang tidak diasuransikan. Tertanggung juga wajib pada insurer dalam abandomen untuk penggantian penuh, memeberitahu tindakan apa yang telah dilakukannya untuk menyelamatkan kapal dan barang yang dipertanggungkan, dan hak insurer atas barang berpindah saat ia beritahukan tentang abandonemen.

Penanggug, dengan alasan bahwa kapal atau barang insured dibebaskan sesudah penyerahan untuk memperoleh penggantian penuh, tak dapat membebaskan diri dari pembayaran jumlah uang tanggungan.

Deurwarder

2007-09-19T10:27:00.000-07:00

Deurwarder

Adalah juru sita, yang melakukan penyitaan barang-barang akibat sesuatu persilisihan yang harus diselesaikan melalui pengadilan.
Deurwarder yang berasal dari kata bahasa belanda yang berarti jurusita dan yang timbul dari kegiatan perasuransian.
Antara penanggung dan tertanggung tidak selamanya terdapat persesuaian pendapat atas barang-barang yang diasuransikan. Kemungkinan ini bisa saja terjadi, karena ketidak jujuran (prinsip uberimae fidae) dari pihak insured.

Unsur-unsur non discolosure sangat membahayakan kondisi perasuransian, sehingga akan menimbulkan kesalahpahaman dan sengketa. Apabila dalam shipping proses perselisihan diselesaikan oleh seorang arbiter, maka dalam hal perasuransian dilakukan oleh seorang deurwaarder sebagai tenga ahli aksir (adjuster).
Penyitaan dilakukan guna menjamin peyelesaian sengketa dan penentuan kesalahan pihak yang bersangkutan.
Ahli ini bebas mmberikan pendapatnya demi terselesikannya persoalan kedua pihak. Dalam penyelesaian masalah harga pertanggungan, adjuster dapat menyatakan suatu pertanggungan sebagai:
1. Under insured
2. Over insured
3. Double insured
4. Agreed value
Jika demikian berarti adanya suatu nondiscolosure, akan tetapi agreed value belum tentu dikatakan sebagai tindakan non-discolosure. Baik sub.a maupun sub.b penggantian kerugian akan diganti sesuai dengan dasar polis atau diganti secara proporsional, misalnya barang USD 1000 dipertanggungkan USD 1500, berti over insured atau sebaliknya harga barang USD 1500 diasuransikan sebagai polis USD 1000. berarti under insured, maka penilaian ini hanya dilakukan setelah timbulnya claim atau kerugian perlu dipanggilkan juru sita.

Double insured artinya pertanggungan dilakukan tertanggung untuk barang yag sama pada 2 assuradeur dengan jumlah harga pertanggungan yang melampui harga pertanggungan. Inipun jika ketahuan, oleh karenanya maka mempertanggungkan harus didasarkan pada honesty atau utmost faith.
Sebaliknya agreed value dilakukan atas barang yang dipertanggungkan dan penilaian bersama (joint survey) dilakukan dimana pendapat tenaga ahli dipakai sebagai dasar harga polis karena harga polis disetujui bersama oleh penanggung dan tertanggung (agreed value)

Insurance Policy

2007-09-19T09:53:00.002-07:00

BEBERAPA MACAM POLIS ASURANSI

Dikenal beberapa macam polis asuransi sebagai berikut:
1. Secara komersial ada :
- open policy
- valued policy
2. Secara operasional terdapat 3 jenis polis:
a. cargo policy
b. hull policy
c. freight policy

Open policy adalah semacam poilis yang mana di dalamnya belum dicantumkan jumlah harga barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan jadi masih terbuka
Hal ini disebabkan karena pemuatan barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan dilakukan denga kapal laut, dan membutuhkan beberapa kali pemuatan (shipment). Setiap kali mengadakan pemuatan, hanya dicatat jumlah party dan harga barang yang dimuat ke kapal. Harga mana dapat dilihat dalam B/L. Jadi setiap kali shipment tertanggung atau agennya melapor kepada penanggung yang kemudian dibuatkan open policy yang diberikan kembali pada tertanggung.
Jika pengapalan dilakukan 6 kali maka akan terdapat 6 helai open policy sementara dari penanggung atas dasar laporan yang diberikan, dan diberikan kepada tertanggung sebagai declaration document. Setiap kali laporan merupakan 1 declaration document.

Premi ditentukan dari jumlah keseluruhan dari partai pengiriman. Sekalipun premi dibayar berkala, setelah menerima persekot 30%, juga tidak menjadi masalah apakah pada shipment ke 3 atau ke 4, kemudian kapal seluruhnya tenggelam namun penanggung harus mengganti semua kerugian, sementara tertanggung tetap memenuhi kewajibannya dengan premi berkala atau sekaligus, sesuai perjanjian dalam polis. Tiap laporan dimaksud untuk kepentingan admisnistrasi.
Dimaksud dengan valued policy, ialah polis yang mana dapat dioper atau diperjual belikan, karena di dalamnya sudah dicantumkan harga pertanggungan, nama pemilik dan harga dari barang-barang tersebut.

Demikian juga dengan cargo policy, Hull & Freight policy. Masing-masing telah menunjukkan bahwa barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan, dikeluarkan cargo policy untuk muatan kapal, untuk pertanggungan kapal dikeluarkan Hull Policy.
Di amerika orang menggunakan SAHF = Standard American Hull Form

Mengenai freight policy atau hire C/P itu dapat dibayar apabila barang selamat tiba ditujuannya sehingga freight erat sekali hubungannya dengan cargo insurance, namun demikian freight dipertanggungkan terlepas dari cargo insurance.
Mempertanggungkan freight sama halnya dengan mempertanggungkan sejumlah uang, demikian juga atas hire C/P. Dan bila Hire C/P tidak dibayar oleh buyer space atau penyewa hal mana akan dikisarkan resikonya kepada penanggung.

Sesunggunya policy atau polis sebagai kontrak ganti rugi seperti halnya dengan B/L, mengadung persyaratan dari kontrak ganti rugi sebagai berikut:
Policy berisi:
1. Nama penanggung dn tertanggung
2. Tanggal dimulainya pertanggungan
3. Nama benda yang dipertanggungkan
4. Syarat-syarat FPA, WA dan lain-lain
5. Harga pertanggungan dan premi
6. Saat mulainya resiko dan berakhirnya pertanggungan
7. Peryaratan asuransi dan signature

B/L sebagai syarat tanggung jawab carrier, sebagai kontrak angkutan sebagaoi berikut:
1. Nama nahkoda kapal yang ditanggng
2. Nama kapal yang dikemudikan
3. Tanggal berangkat kapal dan jurusan
4. Nama muatan yang diangkutan
5. Harga dan jumlah koli/bags
6. Freight yang diabayar shipper
7. Master sign or his agent
8. Syarat-syarat kontrak dibalik halaman

Perbedaan Policy dan Bill of Landing.

POLICY:
1. Ditutup anatara penangung dan calon tertanggung
2. Kans overeenkomst
3. Syarat khusus untuk indemnity
4. Untuk resiko dan masa pertanggugan tertentu
5. Berlaku York Antwerp rules 1950 dan Marine Insurance 1906
6. Imbalan dalam polis disebut premi
7. Premi yang diterima sebanding dengan claim yang dibayar
8. Premi dapat kembali walaupun pertanggungan sudah berjalan
9. Belum pasti untuk nilai perdagangan
10. Mengandung unsur-unsur soisal

BILL OF LANDING:

1. Ditutup anatar shipper dan freigther
2. Eenzijdige eenkomst
3. Syarat resiko angkutan laut
4. Untuk voyage tertentu terhadap perils
5. Haque rules dan UU setempat
6. Imblannya freigth
7. Freight yang diterima dapat lebih keil dari claim yang harus dibayar
8. Freigth dikembalikan jika terjadi kekeliruan
9. Shipped B/L dapat diperjualbelikan
10. Lebih komersial

Pesamaan Policy dan Bill of Landing:
1. Kedua jenis dokumen merupkan ikatan hokum yang sepihak
2. Isi persyaratan dalam policy juga mempertimbangkan syarata-syarat dalam B/L
3. Usaha yang bergerak dalam bidang jasa

Satu dan lain hal yang dimaksud dengan perhitungan syarat policy terhadap B/L adalah tentang tanggung jawab carrier atas angkutan muatannya yang merupakan cross-relation sebagai berikut:
Carrier bertanggung jawa atas kerugian barang-barang yang timbul dalam pengawasanya, selam tidak timbul GA, maka hal yang demikian tidak diperhitungkan dalam asuransi, melainkan dikisatkan kepada P&I club.
Sepanjang timbul GA maka tanggung jawab carrier atas kerugian mana ditanggung oleh penanggung. Carrier hanya menanggung kerugian atas barang-barang yang persyaratannya diatur dalam kontrak angkutan.

Sesungguhnya policy merupakan rangkaian dari kegiatan-kegiatan pertanggungan yang mengandung unsur-unsur sebagai berikut:
1. Subject of insurance (benda yang diasuransikan memang ada)
2. Subject matter of insurance (yaitu terhadap resiko apa benda itu dipertanggungkan)
3. Insurable interest, yaitu bahwa barang-barng yang diasuransikan betul-betul mengandung kemungkinan ditimpa kerugian
4. Total sum of insurance (jumlah pertanggungan)
5. Syarat dan kondisi pertanggungan

Gentlement Agreement

2007-09-19T09:53:00.001-07:00

GENTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Merupakan mufakat yang dilakukan lewat telepfon atau secara lisan yang dilakukan oleh assureadeur dengan calon tertanggung, agreement mana terjadi karena adanya hubungan yang akrab antara kedua pihak.
Seyogyanya dalam suatu business yang besar ini orang melakukannya dengan suatu perjanjian tertulis, namun suatu gentlemen agreement merupakan perikatan hokum yang kemudian akan diselesaikan dengan perikaan tertuli. Gentlemen agreement dapat merupakan pelayanan khusus bagi calon insured.
Guna pedoman perasuransian baik bagi calon tertanggung maupun insurer, perlu mengumumkan aau menawarkan jasa-jasa perasuransian dengan suatu effrte yaitu denga memberika berbagai informasi aau persyaratan polis dan daftar tariff perasuransian. Beberapa persyaratan yang dapat disebutkan disini:
1. Institute cargo clause
2. Institute war clause
3. Institute ctrikes, riots & civil commotion clause
4. Institute running down & sistership clause
5. Institute liabilities (hulss) clause, dan lain-lainnya.

Jika contract of affreightment (B/L) cukup dengan 20-36 ayat persyaratan atau lebih yang dicantumkan dihalaman muka dan dibelakangnya, maka contract of indemnity tidak cukup dengan persyaratan yang sudah dicantum pada polis melainkan perlu mendapatkan penambahan syarat-syarat yang dimufakat bersama kedua pihak dengan 2 cara sebagai berikut:
1. Dengan mencetak pada halaman samping yang kosong dari polis
2. Menempelkan salah satu institute tersebut di atas pada polis.
Misalnya institute dangerous drug clause yang dicetak pada kertas tersendiri dengan huruf-huruf yang kecil dan ditempel pada polis body, demikian dengan Institute cargo clause (FPA) atau institute war & strikes clauses (hull & voyage), dimana di dalamnya diperincikan persyaratan penyelesain bila timbul rugi karena peperangan dan mogok.

Calon tertanggung kemudian akan memilih clause yang dikehendaki atau meminta dibuatkan lagi lain clauses, dengan tidak merugikan pihak penanggung mengenai:
1. Kondisi polis
2. Tarif premi
3. Daerah pelayaran yang akan diarungi insurable interest
4. Harga pertanggungan dan lain-lain.

Kemudian diakseptir assuradeur jika telah ada consensus sebagian atau seluruh (quota share & surpluss treaty), berikut persyaratan lainnya seperti:
1. Sejak kapan mulai pertanggungan dibebankan
2. Pada baas-batas mana assuradeur dibebaskan dari claim
3. Umpama premi tidak dibayar dalam tempo 1 bulan, assuradeur berhak membatalkan kontrak asuransi dan lain-lain.

Covering Insurance

2007-09-19T09:53:00.000-07:00

Prosedur Menutup Asuransi

Pada umum asuransi dibagi menjadi 2 kelompok, yaitu:
1. Asuransi Kerugian (Indemnity Insurance)
2. Asuransi Jiwa (Life Insurance)
Maka asuransi laut termasuk dalam kelompok indemnity insurance, oleh karenanya maka transaksi ganti rugi ini disebut “contract of indemnity” yaitu suatu ikatan antara 2 orang atau lebih mengenai pertanggungan barang-barang yang mengandung kemungkinan-kemungkinan (hazardous) akan barang rusak atau rugi.

Untuk mendapatkan langganan, maka asuradeur biasanya memasang iklan pada surat kabar, radio, televise ataupun alat media masa yang lain, dimana para calon tertanggung perlu memperoleh keterangan yang cukup dari asuransi, misalnya bagaimana dan mengapa calon tertanggung membutuhkan agar kapalnya diasuransikan.
Jika akan mempertanggungkan muatan, kapal atau obyek-obyek yang lain, maka pihak asuransi yang telah menerima tawaran tersebut akan mengambil langkah-langkah sebagai berikut:
1. Mengirimkan team ahli
2. Melakukan penelitian atau survey
3. Menyodorkan polis
4. Menentukan premi
5. Menutup kontrak ganti rugi
Atau dengan kata lain, jika calon tertanggung telah pahami semua keterangan yang diberikan penanggung, maka sebaliknya penanggung juga menghendaki data-data tentang kondisi barang pertanggung antara lain sebagai berikut:
1. Barang yang dipertanggungkan = kapal
2. Tahun pembuatan = 1970
3. Biro klasifikasi = L-R = Lloyds register
4. Surat keterangan mesin = L.M.C 11,50
LMC = Lloyds achinery certificate atau
NB = New Boilers 11,50
5. Voyage
6. Muatan yang akan diangkut
7. Kondisi C/P dan B/L
Ketujuh pokok ini diteliti oleh team ahli untuk mendapatkan hasil survey tentang kebenaran berita yang diberikan calon tertanggung guna penutupan atau ditolaknya perasuransian yang dimaksud, dan jika persyarata yang diminta penanggung disetujui calon tertanggung, maka penanggung akan menyodorkan polis untuk dipelajari atau menolaknya yaitu yang dikenal dengan “marine facultative offer”.

Dimaksud dengan Marine facultative offer adalah penawaran pertanggungan angkutan laut yang dapat diterima ataupun dapat ditolak oleh pihak penanggung.
Facultative artinya tidak diwajibkan atau salah satu pihak dipaksakan untuk menerima tawaran tertanggung, jika penanggung tidak menyetujui persyaratan yang akan diajukan tertanggung ataupun karena kondisi dari barang pertanggungan itu sendiri dan tawaran baru diterima jika antara kedua pihak tertanggung dan penanggung ada persamaan pendapat yaitu dengan cara:
1. Quota share treaty
2. Surpluss treaty
3. Facultative offer (asuransi yang sifatnya insidentil)
Treaty dimaksud dalam perasuransian adalah suatu ikatan antara pemegang polis dan asuadeur, dalam mana masing-masing pihka membuat perincian teknis asuransi, dan merupakan perikatan yang tak dapat dilanggar.

Quota share treaty adalah pembagian yang telah ditetapkan dalam contract of indemnity, misalnya A mempertanggungkan barang-barang seharga USD 1 juta, karena adanya mufakat, quota share (pembagian) tertentu sebanyak 60%, maka selebihnya USD 400,000 dipertanggungkan dengan surpluss treaty. Jadi surpluss treaty artinya pertanggungan atas jumlah lebih. Hal ini dilakukan mengingat adanya kemampuan terbatas asuradeur.
Suatu facultative offer sesuai sifatnya yang insidentil artinya penawaran yang terjadi jarang dan tidak biasa, misalnya asuransi A yang tadinya tidak biasa menerima pertanggungan kapal yang tahun pembuatannya dibawah 1950, akan mawas diri dan berusaha memperoleh data-data seteliti mungkin, disamping bonafiditas calon tertanggung. Sebaliknya berdasarkan penelitian para surveyor, dapat meyakinkan insurer dalam arti memberikan kebebasan bagi insurer bagi setiap penutupan kontrak ganti rugi.

Perusahaan asuransi dalam menjalankan jasa-jasanya perlu pula mengikuti perkembangan benda-benda yang ditanggungnya melalui laporan yang diterima, dan tertanggung seyogyanya memberitahukan kondisi barang-barang pertanggungannya seandanyia terkena sea-perils, civil commodtion, sebab-sebab proses tersebut timbul dan dengan mana masing-masing pihak akan menilai dan memberikan penilaiannya.
Berdasarkan pengalaman ini asuradeur akan mearik garis dan mengadakan kalkulasi rate dan persyaratan yang akan disodorkan bagi calon tertanggung, jika kemudian hari terdapat penawaran pertanggungan yang sama.

Sekalipun insurer tidak berniat spekulasi, naumun kondisi barang-barang yang dipertanggungkan memiliki cirri-ciri yang khas yang perlu untuk menerima perlakuan khusus mencegah exces-exces negative misalnya: dalam angkutan beras, supercargo oleh asuradeur yang diwajibkan menggunakan dunnage secukupnya guna mencegah lengas udara yang membuat beras menjadi lembab, namum tidak digubris, maka surveyor atas nama asuradeur memutuskan dan menolak dan berhak membatalkan unsure-unsur yang dicurigai.
Akseptasi sesuatu penawaran dapat dilakukan:
1. Korespondensi (offerte)
2. Lisan/tilpon ynag ikenal dengan “gentlemen agreement”

What is Marine Insurance?

2007-09-17T10:52:00.000-07:00

Definisi Marine Insurance
Asuransi adalah merupakan perikatan bilateral dimana pihak pertama sebagai tertanggung dengan membayar uang premi pertanggungan kepada pihak kedua sebagai penanggung yang bersedia menanggung kerugian yang dialami barang atau nilai jasa yang timbul milik tertanggung. Jadi asuransi merupakan suatu kegiatan menanggung resiko yang mana dapat ditimbulkan oleh bermacam-macam sebab alami ataupun manusiawi.
Resiko yang menimbulkan kerugian atas harta benda atau hidup manusia misalnya:
1. Resiko yang menimbulkan kebakaran rumah, gedung, kantor, hotel.
2. Resiko karena perampokan/pencurian harta, uang milik pribadi, perusahaan.
3. Resiko ketuaan, kesehatan, kecelakaan atas perorangan yang mana hasil pertanggungan diserahkan kepada pewarisnya, anak keluarga, famili dan sebagainya.
4. Resiko angkutan yang timbul di laut, darat dan udara seperti badai, gelombang yang besar.
Jadi secara khusus Marine Insurance adalah kegiatan pertanggungan atas semua resiko yang mungkin timbul di laut baik terhadap kapal-kapal dagang maupun kapal penumpang.

Marine Insurance mempunyai daerah operasi yang bergerak dalam bidang lalu lintas niaga laut dan perasuransian yang bertujuan untuk mengisarkan atau memindahkan resiko dalam arti kerugian yang timbul, dan bukan merupakan tujuan dimana suatu perasuransian menjamin barang yang tidak ada kemungkinan resikonya yaitu kerugian atau kerusakan.
Contoh: kapal rusak, dan sudah tidak bermotor lagi dan tidak lagi memberi manfaat bagi pelayaran yang berarti tidak mempunyai nilai niaga.

Speculative business.
Setiap kegiatan business akan memberikan 2 alternatif untung dan rugi. Asuransi merupakan suatu kegiatan jasa yang mempertaruhkan unsur spekulasi yaitu yang secara kasarnya berjudi dengan situasi dan kondisi dari suatu kegiatan niaga sekalipun hal ini dilakukan dengan suatu feasibility study namun ia tepat dikatakan sebagai lembaga niaga yang spekulative. Oleh karena sudah menjadi sifatnya ini, maka mendirikan suatu perusahaan asuransi bukanlah semata-mata untuk mencari keuntungan, akan tetapi mengapa banyak orang bercita-cita untuk melakukan usaha asuransi. Mungkinkah usaha asuransi itu rendabel, sehingga tidak kepalang tanggung modal asuransi ditanam dalam jutaan bahakn milyaran dollar? Akan tetapi yang jelas tujuan utama dari pertanggungan adalah untuk menangung kerugian yang diderita pihak lain, maka sebaliknya pihak tertangung juga tidak akan memanfaatkan kesempatan ini denagn menimbulkan situasi dan tindakan non-discolosure yaitu tindakan penyelewengan dan menghilangkan kepercayaan dalam bisnis asuransi.

Tertanggung harus memperlihatkan tindakan kejujuran (good faith) sebagai syarat pelaksanaan operative prinsip, pertanggungan yaitu the principle of indemnity. Sehingga sebelum orang datang kepada penutupan asuransi, terutama pihak tertanggung harus dengan jujur (good faith) memberikan keterangan atau indikasi yang sebenarnya mengenai sifat dan keadaan barang-barang pertanggungannya (discolosure), agar principle of indemnity dapat dilaksanakan dengan sewajarnya tanpa adanya eenzijdige kans, karena jika demikian kemungkinan besar asuransi dapat dibatalkan.
Bahwa tertanggung harus berniat baik yaitu untuk memperkecil kerugian yang mungkin dideritanya.
Sebagaimana disinggung di atas bahwa suatu usaha akan menghadapi konsekuensi keuangan untuk maksud-maksud baik pembayaran ganti rugi maupun pembayaran gaji pegawai, sewa gedung, bunga pinjaman, pajak dan lain sebagainya, sehingga tujuan sebenarnya dalam business modern tak dapat dibatasi sampai pada penggantian ganti rugi, tetapi datang kepada masalah apakah mendirikan asuransi company itu rendable atau tidak? Maka jawaban yang harus diberikan adalah bahwa hidupnya usaha asuransi adalah ditunjang oleh premi yang diterima, yang berarti semakin banyak premi yang ia terima, akan semakin banya pula pihak asuransi dapat melakukan apa saja tindakan-tindakan yang perlu bagi kelangsungan hidup perasuransiannya, atau dengan lain kata bahwa asuransi harus mendapatkan suatu pertimbangan yaitu kegiatan asuransinya harus rendable dan solvable dan yang pada akhirnya berlaku prinsip-prinsip management menuju usaha asuransi yang bonafit.

Para asuradeur dalam asuransi business akan menghadapi masalah kompetisi dan bonafiditas.
Dimaksud dengan kompetisi di sini adalah persaingan antara para asuradeur berkenaan dengan tarif dan service, dan masalah tarif dan kompetisi dalam kondisi moneter negara yang inflative, perlu adanya campur tangan pemerintah, sebaliknya dalam kondisi ekonomi moneter yang stabil, amka persaingan bebas perlu digalkkan dalam arti memberikan kesempatan dan pelayanan yang sebaik-baiknya kepada customer.
Namun para langganan juga mempunyai penilaian tersendiri terhadap setiap perusahaan asuransi, dan hanya kepada asuransi yang bonafit dan dapat dipercaya pelayanannya kepada langganan.

Jika perusahaan asuransi yang sudah mendapat kepercayaan dari masyarakat, kadang-kadang para langganan dikecewakan dengan penyelewengan dan tindakan lain yang mengecewakan dan merugikan langganan.
Kembali kepada masalah speculative business dapat diperluas dengan adanya tindakan tindakan-tindakan rendable dan dibenarkan oleh Undang-undang yaitu sebagai berikut:
1. Harus ada kepentingan yang dipertanggungkan.
2. Ganti rugi sesuai yang diikat dalam perjanjian
3. Adanya kerugian, baru diberi ganti rugi berdasarkan pembuktian yang benar.
Ketiga faktor tersebut di atas ini menunjukkan pula bahwa pihak tertanggung menjadi batal pertanggungannya jika ia berspekulasi dengan keadaan atas hal-hal yang tidak benar, misalnya pertanggungan kapal atas kerugian yang ditimbulkan oleh nahkoda dan anak buah kapal yang teledor. Oleh karenanya maka sebelum perasuransian dimulai perlu dilakukan survey bagi suatu kemungkinan pertanggungan yang dapat dipertanggungjawabkan secara yuridis yaitu dengan melakukan pengumpulan data-data atas dasar survey fisik dan inventarisasi situasi dan kondisi dari barang yang dipertanggungkan secara on the spot, yaitu di tempat benda itu berada, dan yang akhirnya penanggung dapat menarik suatu kesimpulan apakah perasuransian yang akan ditutupnya itu rendable atau tidak, maksudnya kemungkinan bahwa klaim baru akan terjadi setelah beberapa waktu lamanya atau setelah beberapa kali kapal rugi.

Marine News

Health Insurance

Health insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] History and evolution

[edit] How it works

[edit] Health plan vs. health insurance

[edit] Comprehensive vs. scheduled

[edit] Inherent problems with multiple insurance funds and optional insurance

[edit] Adverse selection

[edit] Moral hazard

[edit] Other factors affecting insurance prices

[edit] Comparison

[edit] Australia

[edit] Canada

[edit] France

[edit] Netherlands

[edit] United Kingdom

[edit] United States

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes and references

Origins of Formal Marine Insurance

Contents

[edit] Origins of Formal Marine Insurance

[edit] Practice

[edit] Protection and indemnity

[edit] Actual Total Loss and Constructive Total Loss

[edit] Average

[edit] Excess, Deductible, Retention, Co-Insurance, and Franchise

[edit] Tonners and Chinamen

[edit] Specialist Policies

[edit] Warranties and Conditions

[edit] Salvage and Prizes

[edit] Marine Insurance Act, 1906

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] References

[edit] Bibliography

AdjiE Propeller - Fin Propeller

Insurance Broker's Regulation

Insurance Claim

Insurance Broker

Particular Average

General Average

Abandonment

Deurwarder

Insurance Policy

Gentlement Agreement

Covering Insurance

What is Marine Insurance?