West Coast Resorts V. Allianz Insurance Company: Case Study

CASE LAWS

In West Coast Resorts v. Allianz Insurance Company of Canada, an interesting question arose that whether the loss resulting from the sinking of a barge at her mooring in calm water was a mployed in marine

unintentional ingress of sea water at a part of the barge and in a way where sea water was not expected to enter in the normal course of things. The water that entered did so because, as the consequence of worm infestation. The water that sank the barge entered through a part of the hull in a way that was expected given the condition of the planking. It was not fortuitous. I conclude that, because the ingress of sea water that sank the barge was not fortuitous, the
It is not enough for the owners, in order to discharge the burden, merely to prove the incursion of seawater into the insured vessel that sunk in mid- sea. Any entry of sea water is not in itself a peril of the sea and the incursion is been shown as an accidental or fortuitous.
In Rhesa Shipping Co. S.A. v. Herbert David Edmunds, the Vessel, Popi M, was sailing through the Mediterranean in calm seas and fair weather when there was a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating on the port side. The engine room quickly filled with water and the crew abandoned her. Water continued to fill the aftermost compartments of the vessel and she finally sank in the deep water. The owners claimed under the two-time policies effected on the vessel by them. They claimed that the proximate cause, for the loss of vehicle, was a peril of the sea or alternately, by negligence of the crew. The defendant insurers denied the claim on the ground that the loss was not caused by a peril of the sea but by defective, deteriorated and decayed condition of the vessel and alternately, if the loss was caused by the negligence of the crew, the plaintiffs had failed to show that they had exercised due diligence. House of Lords agreed with the contention of the insurers and held that the only inference which could be drawn from the primary facts
In order to avoid confusion, these perils might be expressly mentioned in the Marine Insurance policy. According to this study, it is clear that losses in Marine Insurance business are the result of the various perils. Marine Insurance policy does not necessarily cover all the risks. Underwriter is liable to indemnify an insured in respect of only losses which result from perils insured against. When the loss occurred is beyond the insured peril, the insured has to bear the loss himself. The onus of proof under a policy of marine insurance is upon the insured to show that the loss was proximately caused by an insured peril. When g underwriter. The perils insured against have been mentioned in the policy and the underwriter shall be liable for damages caused by the insured