Judgment - Reinsurance Focus

undertaking works in respect of the vessel at its shipyard.
4.
In May 2003, NHM was instructed by Mr Roomans of CPL, Sea Trucks and
Roomans Eneli Flynn Brokers Ltd to place a builders' all risks policy in
respect of the vessel, which policy was to include Sembawang as a coassured.
5.
Mr Roomans, CPL and Sea Trucks were authorised by Sembawang and
intended to place builders' all risks insurance on behalf of Sembawang and
to include Sembawang as a co-assured.
6.
The vessel was insured with a final contract value of US$70,800,000. The risk
was placed in London (to the extent of an order of 40%), in Norway (35%)
and Russia (25%).
7.
The London insurers (for their 40% order) subscribed to the Builders' Risks
Policy (Appendix 2) in respect of the vessel on various dates between 21st
and 27th May 2003 respectively. The risk in London was placed by
Newman Martin & Buchan (“NMB”) on the instructions of NHM.
8.
At all material times, Sea Trucks and CPL intended to include Sembawang as a
co-assured under the Builders' Risks Policy as required by the Completion
Contract.
9.
The Claimants contend that, unless the contrary can be said by reason of the
terms of the Builders' Risks Policy, NMB did not entertain an intention that
Sembawang would be covered as a co-assured under the Builders' Risks
Policy.
10. NHM contends that NMB intended that Sembawang would be covered as a coassured
under the Builders' Risks Policy.
11. Unless the contrary can be said by reason of the terms of the Builders' Risks
Policy, the London insurers were not notified that Sembawang was
intended to be a co-assured under the Builders' Risks Policy until after 14th
October 2003.
The Claimants contend that, unless the contrary can be said by reason of the
terms of the Builders' Risks Policy, the London insurers (at the time of or
after their agreement to the Builders' Risks Policy) did not entertain an
intention that, or specifically agree that, Sembawang would be covered as
a co-assured.