Deliberate Damage Pollution Hazard clause is sought by most clients and brokers and invariably insurers provide this clause but not many would know the relevance of this clause. Why? Because they would not have seen claims arising under this extension/clause. The clause states that should any Governmental agency destroy the cargo deliberately in the welfare […]
Even as marine cargo insurers and brokers keep adding newer clauses to policies, some relevant and some cosmetic, the fire accident on the ULCS Maersk Honam is a grim reminder that the maritime perils covered under Institute Cargo Clauses –C are the most relevant even today. Originally vessels were majorly made of wood and hence
Concealed damage or Deferred unpacking clause is often sought by clients and brokers and given by insurers, the only debate being how many days can be given for the discovery of the concealed damage- 30,60,90 or 120 days. Given the manner transits happen nowadays, this clause can be stated to be necessary. In simple terms,
The biggest confusion prevailing in the Marine cargo market in India is about “ storage cover” under a marine transit policy. Almost every slip comes with a request for intermediate storage of 60-90 days. What is intermediate storage? Some insurers take it to mean “ storage in the ordinary course of transit”. If so, why
A doubt often raised by many is whether Terrorism stands covered under a policy issued on ICC-A terms. The answer is NO. Terrorism forms part of the Strikes group of perils which is an exclusion under ICC. In practice this exclusion gets negated by addition of the Institute Strikes Clauses to the policy, so much
ICC-A is an All-Risk cover on named exclusions basis. One of the exclusions relate to the War group of perils. Then how are War risks covered under marine cargo policies? Almost as a matter of routine, Institute War Clauses(Cargo) are attached along with ICC thereby nullifying the exclusion. There are certain interesting differences between ICC
General exclusion 4.1 of the ICC clauses speaks about “ Loss damage or expense attributable to wilful misconduct of the assured” being an exclusion & rightly so. An assured should not benefit or get indemnified because of his own misconduct. This is one exclusion which cannot be bought back too. Issues arise when the assured
Insurance of Import Duty value under a marine cargo policy
