ABSTRACT
Moreover, the two tiers of cover now provided in the (B) and (C) Clauses do not equate to the variations in cover between the FPA and WA Clauses. The (B) and (C) Clauses are distinguished by a more generous provision of perils under the (B) Clauses for which, no doubt, a higher premium is payable. The WA and FPA Clauses were distinguished on a different basis. The WA Clauses provided cover for losses, whether total or partial, subject to claims reaching a certain size by percentage under the Memorandum in the SG Form so, for example, sugar tobacco and hemp were not covered unless the loss exceeded 5% and
franchise and when the franchise percentage was reached the claim was payable in full. The FPA Clauses provided cover that was limited initially to cases of total loss. These limitations on cover were lifted under both sets of Clauses where the vessel was ‘‘stranded, sunk, or burnt’’ and both paid the value of any packages ‘‘totally lost in loading, transhipment or discharge’’. There was also full cover for loss or damage ‘‘reasonably attributable to’’ fire, explosion and collision.6 The limitations on cover were achieved in time-honoured language, by ‘‘warranting’’ the insurance ‘‘free from average under the percentage specified’’ (WA) and ‘‘warranting’’ the insurance ‘‘free from Particular Average’’ (FPA) and then lifting these restriction by the proviso ‘‘unless the vessel be stranded, sunk or burnt’’ or there was total loss of packages, fire or collision etc, as just described. These older forms of cover occasionally have relevance to the current Clauses in relation to particular issues where they will be referred to from time to time.7
