Late Defences By Insurers

Elafonissos Fishing & Shipping v Aigaion Insurance Co SA (the "AGIOS SPYRIDON") [2012] Commercial Court, 4 April 2012 Societe Generale v Wurttembergische Versicherung AG & Ors [2012]1 Commercial Court, 5 April 2012 The English Commercial Court has recently had to consider two cases in which insurers sought to introduce new defences to the claim very late in the day. The Agios Spyridon involved a hull and machinery policy claim arising from storm damage to a fishing vessel while at anchor in Madagascar. The policy contained a warranty to the effect that the vessel was "laid up in port of Mahanjanga", and insurers contended that the vessel was in fact not laid up in port at the time of the loss. They also alleged material non-disclosure.

The matter was due to proceed to trial on 14 May 2012, but on 7 March 2012 insurers sought to add a new defence, that compliance with the lay-up warranty required the vessel to be maintained in "hot lay-up", meaning that she was still manned, and with at least her main engine operable. This, they alleged, was the customary meaning of the lay-up warranty, and they sought to adduce expert witness evidence to that effect. They also alleged that the lay-up warranty meant that the vessel would be laid up in a seaworthy condition and in accordance with the port regulations.

The court permitted the last of these amendments, but refused permission in respect of the balance. Although the assured would have suffered no prejudice by the late amendments (that is to say, no prejudice that could not be compensated in costs), the court still had to be satisfied in considering such a late application whether the proposed amendments had any real prospect of success. This question should be scrutinised all the more where, as here, a relatively small sum was in issue. In this case, it was held that the insurers had no prospect of showing that the lay-up warranty specifically meant "hot" lay-up as distinct from "cold", or that a vessel not laid up in a seaworthy condition was thereby in breach of any alleged implied warranty. Consequently, the amendments were rejected.

The Societe Generale case arose under a policy insuring both precious and non-precious metals, and concerned a US$500m...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT