(On Appeal from the Court of Appeal in England.)
Subject_Insurance — Marine Insurance — Policy Effected by Owner of Ship — Rigid of Charterer to Benefit of Policy — Demise of Ship.
The owners of a vessel effected a obey of insurance on her, the policy eing in common form and purporting to be made on the proposal of certain insurance brokers “as well in their own name as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the subject-matter of this policy does, may, or shall appertain in part or in all.” The policy contained a collision clause. The vessel was chartered under a charter-party amounting to a demise of the ship during the currency of the charter to the charterers. Owing to her fault a collision took place with another vessel, the damages for which were paid by the charterers, who afterwards brought this action to recover them from the insurance company under the policy effected by the owners. There was no evidence of intention on the part of the owners to protect the charterers by insurance unless such intention could be inferred from the mere fact of the existence of the policy taken in connection with the language of the charter of which only the following clauses bore on the question, viz., clause 3, which declared that the charterers should pay for certain specified charges “and all other charges whatsoever” except repairs to hull and machinery and anything appertaining to keep the ship in working order; clause 17—“It is understood in event of steamer from above causes (stress of weather, etc.) putting into any port or ports other than those to which she is bound that the charterers are covered as to expenses as the owners are by their insurance”; clause 22—“That the owners shall pay for the insurance of the vessel.”
Held that the charterers could not recover from the insurance company, there being no evidence that their interest was covered by the policy.
This was an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal ( Vaughan Williams, Romer, and Stirling, L. JJ.) affirming a judgment of Bigham, J.
The facts of the case appear sufficiently from the opinions of their Lordships infra, and in particular from the narrative at the commencement of the opinion of
Counsel for the Appellants— Carver, K.C.—A. Llewelyn Davies. Agents— Biddle, Thorne, Welsford, & Sidgwick, Solicitors.
Counsel for the Respondents— Scrutton, K.C—J. A. Hamilton, K.C.—Maurice Hill. Agents— Waltons, Johnson, Bubb, & Whatton, Solicitors.