MARINE INSURANCE ACT, 1906

 

MARINE INSURANCE ACT, 1906

 

Contract of Marine Insurance
Essential elements of — A contract of Marine Insurance is essentially based
upon utmost good faith and the obligation is binding upon both the contracting parties
— The question necessarily arises whether the parties had the good faith at the
time of taking the insurance policy as per the bill of lading.

The
Mercentile Fire and General Insurance Co. of (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe
Company (Pakistan) Ltd. and others, 9BLD(HCD)533

 

Section — 18

Non — disclosure of material facts
Insurer’s plea of non-disclosure in repudiation of contract when not tenable —
It is clear from the policy of insurance that the insurer knew about the nature
-of the articles insured and that those were packed in wooden cases — It is
relay a matter wherein onus of proof lies upon the insurer to prove that the
assured had failed to perform the duty of disclosure of the condition of
package of the articles — Circurnstances as argued for the appellant need not
be disclosed as the same were known to the insurer in the ordinary course of
business as a matter of common knowledge.

The
Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Co. of (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe Company
(Pakistan) Ltd. and others, 9BLD (HCD) 533

 

Section—55

Inherent vice — What it is in the
context of marine insurance — Spontaneous combustion, disease, decay or
fermentation by which process by the internal development, the subject—matter
itself tends to the destruction of the goods to be carried are inherent vice.

The
Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Co. of (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe
Company (Pakistan) Ltd. and others, 9BLD(HCD)533

 

Section – 55

Inherent vice — When the plea of
inherent vice is not available to the insurer — The exclusion of liability of
the insurer on account of inherent vice of the subject — matter is qualified by
contrary provision with the words “unless the policy otherwise provides” which
means the parties will be governed by the contract itself — The description of
risks in the policy of the present case constitute a sufficient contrary
provision and it is an all risk insurance policy.

The
Mercantile Fire and General insurance Co. of (Pakistan) Ltd. Vs. Bata Shoe
Company (Pakistan) Ltd. and others, 9BLD (HCD) 533

Ref:
(1921)2 AC 41(57); (1939)3 A)1.E.R. 857;

Dodwell
and Company Ltd. Vs. British Dominion General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in
Lioyds List and Shipping Gazettee of April 9, 1918; E.D. Session Co. Ltd. Vs.
Vorkshire Insurance Co., reported in 16 Liyod’s Report pagei33 — relied