지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
A contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incident to marine adventure.
The ship which is most important of shipping business shall be seaworthy, i.e., reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the adventure.
Section 39 (5) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 provides as follows: In a time policy there is no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage of the adventure, but where, with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness.
On a literal construction of the subsection, the insurer would be exempted from subsequent losses attributable to any kind of unseaworthiness, and not merely from those attributable to the particular defect, of which the insured had knowledge when he sent the vessel to sea It seems, however, that the proviso must be construed as if the word "such" were inserted before the word "unseaworthiness".
Thus the assured may recover for loss by perils of the seas, although the vessel was unseaworthy, if he was not privy to such unseaworthiness, but that if he were privy, he would be unable to recover.
The insurer is not to be liable for a loss attributable to unseaworthiness to which the assured was privy. In the case of insurance under a time policy the intention was that the assured should be unable to recover in respect of a loss occasioned by his own fault That was the rule under the law as it existed before the Act.
The meaning of the words "privity of the assured" means not only knowledge of the facts constituting the unseaworthiness but also knowledge that those facts rendered the ship unseaworthy, and means that the persons whose knowledge is relevant are the assured personally or their alter ego.
Knowledge for this purpose does not merely mean positive knowledge that the ship is unseaworthy, or not reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage, but includes also that sort of knowledge expressed in the phrase "turning a blind eye". If a man, suspicious of the truth, turns a blind eye to it, and refrains from inquiry - so that he should not know it for certain - then he is to be regarded as knowing the truth.
But "privity" does not necessarily carry any connotation of fault; it is not the same as negligence, nor is it the same as wilful misconduct, although in many cases- sending to sea in an unseaworthy state may also be either negligence or misconduct.
The burden of proof on the issue of unseaworthiness is on the underwriter.
The ship which is most important of shipping business shall be seaworthy, i.e., reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the adventure.
Section 39 (5) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 provides as follows: In a time policy there is no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage of the adventure, but where, with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness.
On a literal construction of the subsection, the insurer would be exempted from subsequent losses attributable to any kind of unseaworthiness, and not merely from those attributable to the particular defect, of which the insured had knowledge when he sent the vessel to sea It seems, however, that the proviso must be construed as if the word "such" were inserted before the word "unseaworthiness".
Thus the assured may recover for loss by perils of the seas, although the vessel was unseaworthy, if he was not privy to such unseaworthiness, but that if he were privy, he would be unable to recover.
The insurer is not to be liable for a loss attributable to unseaworthiness to which the assured was privy. In the case of insurance under a time policy the intention was that the assured should be unable to recover in respect of a loss occasioned by his own fault That was the rule under the law as it existed before the Act.
The meaning of the words "privity of the assured" means not only knowledge of the facts constituting the unseaworthiness but also knowledge that those facts rendered the ship unseaworthy, and means that the persons whose knowledge is relevant are the assured personally or their alter ego.
Knowledge for this purpose does not merely mean positive knowledge that the ship is unseaworthy, or not reasonably fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage, but includes also that sort of knowledge expressed in the phrase "turning a blind eye". If a man, suspicious of the truth, turns a blind eye to it, and refrains from inquiry - so that he should not know it for certain - then he is to be regarded as knowing the truth.
But "privity" does not necessarily carry any connotation of fault; it is not the same as negligence, nor is it the same as wilful misconduct, although in many cases- sending to sea in an unseaworthy state may also be either negligence or misconduct.
The burden of proof on the issue of unseaworthiness is on the underwriter.
목차
Abstract
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. 耐航性의 의의와 성격
Ⅲ. 선박불내항에 대한 보험자의 면책근거
Ⅳ. 선박불내항에 대한 보험자의 면책범위
Ⅴ. 결론
참고문헌
참고문헌 (17)
참고문헌 신청
함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
2009년 협회적하약관(A)에서의 불내항-부적합에 대한 보험자의 면책범위
관세학회지
2010 .12
-
2009년 협회적하약관의 면책조항 상 주요 개정내용에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2013 .02
-
해상보험계약상 입증책임의 문제점과 대안
무역학회지
2005 .02
-
해상운송에 있어서 화재에 대한 책임
한양법학
2009 .08
-
영국해상보험법 제39조 5항과 제17조의 해석에 관한 The Star Sea사건 판례연구
무역학회지
2007 .04
-
船舶投資會社의 法理
동아법학
2005 .12
-
協會期間(船舶)約款上의 免責危險
산업경제연구
2000 .03
-
海運産業과 船舶의 國際標準化에 관한 硏究
해운물류연구
2003 .01
-
戰時 船舶의 保護 問題
국제법학회논총
1995 .12
-
해상운송에 있어서 독립적 계약자의 지위
한양법학
2010 .11
-
선박의 숨은 하자에 관한 연구 - 부산지방법원 2016. 3. 25. 선고 2014가단246949 판결 및 부산지방법원 2017. 5. 12. 선고 2016나43473 판결을 중심으로 -
한국해법학회지
2017 .01
-
FORMAL LEGAL TRUTH AND SUBSTANTIVE TRUTH IN JUDICIAL FACT-FINDING - THEIR JUSTIFIED DIVERGENCE IN SOME PARTICULAR CASES
서강법학
2008 .06
-
ICC(A)(2009)와 ICC(A)(1982)상의 면책위험 비교분석
관세학회지
2014 .12
-
船舶解體量의 變動要因에 관한 硏究
산업경제연구
1999 .01
-
해상법상 손해배상책임 제도의 문제점
한양법학
2011 .11
-
2009년 개정협회적하약관의 면책조항에 관한 연구
경영경제
2010 .08
-
세월호 사고 이후 개정된 선박 안전 관련 법규의 몇 가지 문제에 관한 고찰
한국해법학회지
2015 .01
-
표류 및 정류선박의 항법상 지위와 법률상의 책임 -중앙해양안전심판원의 재결 사례를 대상으로-
한국해법학회지
2016 .01
-
국제선박보험약관(International Hull Clauses)의 도입과 주요 특징에 관한 고찰 - 국제선박보험약관(2003년)과 협회기간약관(1983년)과의 비교분석을 중심으로 -
보험금융연구
2008 .01
-
변호사의 사적 비행(私的非行)에 대한 징계 : 정당화 논거에 대한 비판적 검토
중앙법학
2016 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002836775