« 上一頁繼續 »
On a marine policy for total loss, &c.
be held covered provided notice thereof was given to the defendant on receipt of advices.
3. The risks and losses insured against by the defendant under the said policy were those ordinarily covered by a marine policy, and included perils of the seas and all other perils, losses, ard misfortunes that had or should come to the hurt, detriment, or damage of the said subject matter of insurance or any part of the same. And it was by the said policy further provided that in case of any loss or misfortune, it should be lawful to the plaintiffs, their factors, servants, and assigns, to sue labour and travel in and about the defence, safeguard, and recovery of the said subject matter of insurance, or any part thereof, without prejudice to the said insurance, to the charges whereof the defendant would contribute according to the rate and quantity of the sum by the defendant insured. And it was provided by the said policies that general average should be paid according to foreign statement if required, and the said subject matter of insurance was warranted free from particular average below the load water-line, unless occasioned by fire, grounding, or contact with some substance other than water.
4. The plaintiffs and A. B., H. F., E. F., since deceased, and
A mere ex- tended by the insured. (Seaman v. Fonerau, 2 Str. 1183.) If a reprepression of sentation is not a positive assertion, but only an expression of opinion, opinion expectation, or belief, this will not avoid the policy, if the assertion is will not made bona fide, and in ignorance of the untruth. (Barber v. Fletcher, 1
Doug. 305 ; Anderson v. Pacific, Sc., Insur. Co., 21 L. T. N. S. 408, P. C.) It is sufficient, however, if the representation be substantially correct, and it need not, like a warranty, be strictly and literally complied with.
(Pandon v. Watson, Cowp. 785.) Any frau
Frand.]-Any fraudulent statement made by the assured to induce the dulent
underwriters to accept the risk will avoid the policy. “If the represenstatement
tation was by fraudulent design it avoids the policy without staying to will destroy inquire into its materialty.”. (Kent Com. 283.) If goods insured are the policy.
over valued with intent to defraud the underwriters, the contract is void, and the assured cannot recover even for the value actually on board. (Haigh v. De La Cour, 3 Camp. 319.)
Other defences.] --The defendants may plead some contravention of law by the assured having direct relation to the subject of the risk, and this, if sustained, will be a good defence. (See Cunard v. Ilyde, 2 E. & E, 1, L. J. 29 Q. B. 6; Wilson v. Rankin, 6 B. & S. 208 ; L. J. 34 Q. B. 62, aff. in Ex. Ch. L. R. 1 Q. B. 162; Dudgeon v. Pembroke, L. R. 9 Q. B. 581.) He may also plead the breach by the plaintiff of some one or other of the express or implied warranties of the policy; and in fact the defence in probably a majority of the actions on marine policies is a deviation by the vessel during the voyage or her unseaworthiness at the inception of the risk.
S. F., or some or one of them, were or was, at the time of the On a ma
rine policy commencement of the said risk and of the effecting of the said
for total insurance, and thence until and at the time of the several losses loss, &c. herein mentioned, interested in the subject matter of the said insurance to the value and amount of all the moneys ever insured thereon, and the said policy was made for the use and benefit and on account of the person or persons so interested as aforesaid.
5. The said vessel sailed from N. to A. on the said insured voyage, and afterwards, on or about the day of —, 1876, sailed from A. on the said insured voyage, and after the commencement of the said risk, and whilst the said policy was in full force and effect, the said vessel became and was, by perils insured against in the said policy and not by any of the perils, causes, and matters from which the said subject matter of insurance was warranted free, wholly lost.
6. The plaintiffs further say that during the said insured voyage, and whilst the said subject matter of insurance was covered by the said policy, the said subject matter of insurance sustained a particular average loss by the perils insured against by the said policy, in respect of which the assured are entitled to be indemnified under the said policy.
7. The defendants further say that during the said insured voyage, and whilst the said subject matter of insurance was covered by the said policy, a loss and misfortune arose within the true intent and meaning of the same, and thereupon, in accordance with the terms of the said policy in that behalf, the assured incurred divers charges and expenses for which the defendant became liable to the plaintiff for a large sum in proportion to the sum insured by the said policy.
8. The plaintiffs further say that during the said insured voyage, losses and expenses were incurred for the preservation of the said vessel, her cargo, and freight, for which the assured became liable to contribute in general average, and a general average loss was thereby occasioned within the meaning of the said policy, for which the defendants became liable to pay to the plaintiffs a large amount.
9. The plaintiffs have requested the defendant to pay the several amounts due to them under and in respect of the said policy, but the defendant refuses to pay the same.
On a marine policy for total loss, &c.
The plaintiffs claim:
cover on the said policy, a return of the premium paid
Statement of Defence.
7. At the commencement of the voyage and risk respectively, and at all material times thenceforth, the vessel has been always unseaworthy for the risk and voyage respectively.
8. The defendant further says that he was induced to effect the said insurance, and to execute the said policy, by the wrongful and improper concealment by the plaintiffs and their agents from the defendant of certain facts then known to the plaintiffs and their agents, and unknown to the defendant, and material to the said risk, and which ought to have been communicated by the plaintiffs or their agents to the defendant or his agents, viz. [Here set out the substance of the alleged concealment].
9. The defendant brings into Court the sum of £3, being the amount of premium paid by the plaintiffs in respect of the said policy with interest, and says that the same is enough to satisfy the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the said policy.
Payment into Court.
Action by Shipowner on Marine Policy for Total Constructive
Loss of a Ship. On a ma- 1. The plaintiff, at the times hereinafter respectively menrine policy for a tota tioned, was the owner of the ship called the “M.” construc- 2. The plaintiff, on the 8th day of June, 1875, caused to be tive loss.
made a policy of insurance, with certain memoranda thereunder written in the words and figures following:
[Here follows the policy set out at length. It was in the usual form.]
3. In pursuance of the said policy aforesaid the plaintiff paid to the defendant £3 3s. as a premium for the insurance of £50 of and upon the premises in the said policy mentioned as aforesaid, and the defendant became and was an insurer to the plaintiff as aforesaid, and duly subscribed the said policy as such insurer for the said £50 upon the premises in the said policy On a ma
rine policy mentioned.
for a total 4. The plaintiff, at the time of the making of the said policy, construc
tive loss. and from thence continually afterwards until and at the time of the loss hereinafter mentioned, was interested in the said ship to the amount of all the moneys insured thereon, and the said policy was effected for his benefit and on his behalf.
5. Afterwards and between the 16th day of April, 1875, and the 15th day of Oct., 1875, during the continuance of the risk covered by the said policy, the said ship became by the perils so insured against a constructive total loss, and notice of abandonment was thereupon duly given by the plaintiff to the agent of the defendant in that behalf.
6. All conditions precedent have been fulfilled necessary to entitle the plaintiff to be paid the said sum of £50 by the defendant, yet the defendant has not paid the same.
The plaintiff claims :
Action by Owner on Marine Policy for Damage to Vessel
by peril insured against. 1. The plaintiffs are owners of the steamship“ L.," and the On a ma
rine policy defendant is an underwriter.
for damage 2. On or about the day of 1876, the plaintiffs to a vessel. caused to be made on the said steamship "L" a policy of insurance, which was in the words, letters, and figures following, that is to say:
[Here follows the policy, which was in the usual terms. ] 8. The defendant, in consideration of the said premium of 208. per cent., underwrote the said policy for the sum of £100, and thereby became an insurer to the plaintiffs for that amount.
4. The plaintiffs were then, and thence and until the happening of the damage hereinafter mentioned, interested in the said steamship to the amount of all the moneys by them insured thereon, and the said policy was made on their account and for their use and benefit.
5. The said steamship sailed from the Clyde on her said voyage in ballast, on the 4th day of April, 1876, and on the morning of the 7th of April, and during the continuance of the said risk, by reason of the perils insured against, one of the
в в 2
On a ma
boilers exploded and was wholly destroyed, and the said steamrine policy for damage ship was greatly injured and damaged, and had to be towed into to a vessel. M., where a survey was held upon her, and in accordance with a
recommendation of the surveyors sufficient repairs were effected to enable her to proceed to L.
6. The said steamship afterwards proceeded to London in order to be permanently and properly repaired, and she was there so repaired.
7. By the matters aforesaid the said steamship was by the perils insured against by the said policy injured and damaged to an extent exceeding £3 per cent. within the true meaning and intent of the said policy, and the defendant's proportion of the said average loss in respect of the sum of £100 so insured by the defendant as aforesaid amounted to £40.
8. All conditions were fulfilled, and all things happened and existed and all times elapsed, necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to be paid the said sum of £40, yet the defendant has not paid the said sum or any part thereof.
The plaintiffs claim :-
On a marine policy effected on goods.
Action on Policy by Shipper for Total Loss of Cargo. 1. The plaintiff is a merchant, and the defendant is an underwriter.
2. On or about the 6th of October, 1876, the plaintiff, by his agents Messrs. M. & D., caused to be made a policy of insurance, which was in the words, figures, and letters following, that
is to say:
[Here follow's policy of insurance on goods shipped per the “M. S."]
3. The defendant, in consideration of the premiums therein mentioned and paid by the plaintiff, underwrote the said policy for the sum of £-, and became an insurer to the plaintiff for the said amount in respect thereof.
4. The plaintiff was, at the time of making the said policy, and until and at the time of the loss hereinafter mentioned, interested in the said goods to the amount of all the moneys by