Two Policies, One Leaking Hatch
A Guwahati tea exporter shipped 600 chests of CTC tea from Kolkata to Dubai on CFR terms. The Dubai buyer is the consignee and bears the risk from the moment the cargo passes the ship's rail at Kolkata. The buyer insured the consignment for Rs 60,00,000 with Insurer A under a marine cargo policy on Institute Cargo Clauses terms. Separately, the exporter's clearing agent, doubting that the buyer's cover would be honoured, arranged a second policy with Insurer B for Rs 25,00,000 describing the exporter as insured 'for the account of whom it may concern'. During the voyage seawater entered through a hatch cover that the master had reported defective two ports earlier. The discharge survey found 200 chests damaged beyond salvage, with a sound value of Rs 18,00,000. The buyer, on receiving the survey report, signed a 'no claim' letter to the shipping line in exchange for a goodwill payment of Rs 50,000, without informing either insurer. Both insurers have now received the claim.
1. Who had insurable interest, and are both policies valid? Compute how the loss would be shared.
Read the worked answer
Insurable interest. Insurable interest is economic exposure to loss, not ownership. Under CFR the risk passes to the buyer when the goods cross the ship's rail, so the buyer was exposed from shipment and had a full insurable interest even though title and documents moved later. The exporter, until payment and delivery, retained a contingent interest – if the buyer rejected the documents or the goods, the loss would fall on the exporter. The 'whom it may concern' wording in Policy B is designed for exactly that position and covers the interest of whoever proves to be at risk.
Both policies are therefore valid, and this is double insurance, not fraud. The insured cannot recover more than the loss; the insurers contribute rateably.
Computation. Loss Rs 18,00,000 less the Rs 50,000 recovered from the carrier = Rs 17,50,000 (indemnity is reduced by any recovery). Ratio A:B = 60:25 = 60/85 and 25/85. Insurer A pays 17,50,000 x 60/85 = Rs 12,35,294. Insurer B pays 17,50,000 x 25/85 = Rs 5,14,706.
If A had already paid in full, A could claim contribution of Rs 5,14,706 from B. Each insurer should also confirm that the other policy was disclosed on the proposal, since non-disclosure of other insurance can affect the contract.
2. What is the effect of the buyer's 'no claim' letter to the shipping line on the insurers' liability?
Read the worked answer
Subrogation is the issue. On payment, an insurer is subrogated to the insured's rights against third parties responsible for the loss – here, the carrier whose defective hatch caused the water ingress. That right is valuable and the insured is under a duty to preserve it.
The insured's act is prejudicial. By releasing the carrier for a Rs 50,000 goodwill payment, the buyer extinguished the very right the insurers would have inherited. Under the duty of assured in the marine cargo clauses and Section 79 of the Marine Insurance Act 1963, an insured who prejudices the insurer's subrogation rights risks a reduction of the claim to the extent of the prejudice, or, if the release was deliberate and material, a defence to the claim.
But the defence is not absolute. The insurer must show what it actually lost: the carrier's liability under the Hague-Visby package limitation may have been modest, and a small goodwill payment is not necessarily a full and final discharge. If the letter was signed after the loss but before payment, and was a condition of getting any cooperation from the line, a proportionate reduction is the fairer outcome than total denial.
Practical step. The insurers should quantify the carrier's likely liability, deduct that from the claim (which has already been done by netting the Rs 50,000), and consider whether the 'no claim' letter was given in breach of the claims cooperation clause.
3. The exporter argues that because the policy with A is for Rs 60,00,000 and the damaged chests' sound value is Rs 18,00,000, he should get Rs 18,00,000 from A alone. Evaluate.
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses sum insured with loss. A sum insured is the ceiling of liability, not a promise to pay it. Marine cargo cover is a contract of indemnity: the insured recovers the measure of the loss, subject to the sum insured and any valuation clause.
Measure of loss. For a partial loss of part of a consignment, the loss is the sound value of the damaged portion less salvage, proportionately reduced if the insured value differs from the actual value. With no salvage, that is Rs 18,00,000, reduced to Rs 17,50,000 by the carrier recovery.
Which policy pays. Where two policies cover the same interest, the insured may claim under either, but cannot recover twice. The insurer paying more than its share has a right of contribution from the other. Choosing A alone does not entitle the exporter to more than Rs 17,50,000 in total.
A caveat on valued policies. If the policy is a valued policy, the agreed value fixes the basis of adjustment for partial losses, and the insurer cannot later dispute the value in the absence of fraud. If it is unvalued, the market value at destination or at the place of shipment governs. The policy wording must be checked before any figure is finalised; the sum insured alone is not decisive.