Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission
Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission
Insurance Contract Law Issues Paper 2 Warranties - Law Commission
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
It is a striking feature of this branch of the law that other legal systems<br />
are increasingly discarding the more extreme features of English law<br />
which allow an insurer to avoid liability on grounds which do not relate<br />
to the occurrence of the loss. 24<br />
6.50 In Canada, the Marine <strong>Insurance</strong> Act 1993 is based on the UK Marine <strong>Insurance</strong><br />
Act 1906. However courts have limited it “to situations where the warranty is<br />
material to the risk and the breach has a bearing on the loss.” 25 Where cases do<br />
not meet this criterion, the courts tend to find that the clause is not a true<br />
warranty at all.<br />
The Bamcell II<br />
6.51 The leading case is the Supreme Court decision in Century <strong>Insurance</strong> Company<br />
of Canada v Case Existological Laboratories Ltd. (“The Bamcell II”). 26 The<br />
Bamcell II was a converted barge used for oceanographic experiments. The<br />
owners had negotiated a policy, which included the following term<br />
Warranted that a watchman is stationed on board the BAMCELL II<br />
each night from 2200 hours to 0600 hours with instructions for<br />
shutting down all equipment in an emergency.<br />
6.52 In fact, the owners never placed a watchman on board. However, there were no<br />
problems at night. The loss occurred mid afternoon, and therefore the breach had<br />
“absolutely no bearing whatever on the loss” 27 . As a result, Ritchie J held:<br />
The clause would only have been effective if the loss had occurred<br />
between 2200 hours and 0600 hours, and it was proved that there<br />
was no watchman stationed aboard during those hours. To this extent<br />
the condition contained in the clause constituted a limitation of the<br />
risk insured against but it was not a warranty. 28<br />
24 Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and others (The Star Sea) [2001]1<br />
All ER 743, at para 79. Lord Hobhouse specifically mentions “the most outspoken criticism<br />
of the English law of non-disclosure” found in the South African case of the Mutual and<br />
Federal <strong>Insurance</strong> [1995] (I) SA 419.<br />
25 Christopher Giaschi. “<strong>Warranties</strong> in Marine <strong>Insurance</strong>” <strong>Paper</strong>, Association of Marine<br />
Underwriters of British Columbia, Vancouver, 10 April 1997.<br />
http://www.admiraltylaw.com/papers/warranties.htm (24 May 2006)<br />
26<br />
[1984] 1 WWR 97.<br />
27 Century <strong>Insurance</strong> Company of Canada v Case Existological Laboratories Ltd. (The<br />
“BAMCELL II”) [1984] 1 WWR 97, 104, per Ritchie J.<br />
28 Century <strong>Insurance</strong> Company of Canada v Case Existological Laboratories Ltd. (The<br />
“BAMCELL II”) [1984] 1 WWR 97, 104, per Ritchie J.<br />
56