chapter  13
10 Pages


ByI General Matters

Exchange Corp [1911] 2 KB 398, 404. 28. CJ Wills & Son v World Mar Ins Co Ltd (The Mermaid) (1911) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 350n. See also

Prudent Tankers SA v Dominion Ins Co Ltd (The Caribbean Sea) [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 338. 29. Hutchins Bros v Royal Exchange Ass Corp [1911] 2 KB 398 and Scindia Steamships (London) Ltd v

London Ass [1937] 1 KB 639, interpreting Oceanic SS Co v Faber (1906) 11 Com Cas 179; affd (1907) 13 Com

The law on this point may appear somewhat perverse, in that the Inchmaree clause does not specifically require a loss to be suffered by a part of the hull and machinery other than the damaged part, and the effect of the cases is that there would probably still be no recovery in a case such as The Inchmaree,30 the effect of which for the assured the clause was intended to reverse. Specific provision in standard cover is now contained in the International Hull Clauses 2003.31

13.22 The losses constituted by the clause under review may be recovered if they can be said to be caused by a different insured peril, for example if a boiler bursts or a shaft breaks because of the negligence of a member of the crew32 or if the incursion of seawater is permitted by a latent defect in the hull.33 However, there are in practice three limitations on this possibility.