Lost Cargo is Dead Weight: Insurer Avoids Coverage Due to Breach of “Deadweight Warranty” in Marine PolicyFriday, October 3rd, 2014
By Alex J. Potts, Sedgwick Bermuda
In Hua Tyan Development Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co Ltd  HKCFA 72, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal dismissed a marine insurance claim on grounds of breach of warranty by an insured.
The parties entered into an insurance contract with respect to a shipment of a cargo of logs from Malaysia to the People’s Republic of China. The contract contained a clause warranting the vessels’ deadweight capacity to be no less than 10,000 tons (the “Deadweight Warranty”).
In mid-January 2008, the vessel sank and the cargo was lost. The insurers rejected the insured’s claim in connection with the loss on the basis that the Deadweight Warranty had been breached, as the vessel only had a deadweight capacity of about 8,960 tons.
The court held that insurers are entitled to rely on the Deadweight Warranty, despite the insured’s various arguments based on estoppel, waiver and rectification. The court found no inconsistency in the insurance contract with respect to the identification of the vessel by name and the existence of the Deadweight Warranty.
The judgment provides considerable certainty and clarification to insurers operating in the Hong Kong marine insurance market, to the effect that insurance contracts will be enforced in accordance with their terms. Although a Hong Kong court decision, the judgment should be of interest to London and Bermuda insurers and P&I clubs for a number of reasons:
- Hong Kong’s Marine Insurance Ordinance of 1961 largely follows the UK’s Marine Insurance Act 1906, which was in turn a codification of the common law. As in England and Bermuda, breach of a marine insurance warranty discharges an insurer’s liability automatically as of the date of breach.
- This is a topical area of law which is the subject of review, and likely statutory reform, in the UK.
- The dismissal of the appeal means that the insured’s brokers have been found liable to indemnify the insured with respect to the vessel’s insured value. The precise circumstances giving rise to the broker’s liability were not fully explored in the judgment; however, the case demonstrates the liabilities that brokers face in practice, when cover is successfully denied by insurers.