Sun Alliance & London Insurance Plc & Ors v PT Asuransri Dayin Mitra TBK [2006] EWHC 812 (Comm) (11 April 2006)

Sun Alliance & London Insurance Plc & Ors v PT Asuransri Dayin Mitra TBK [2006] EWHC 812 (Comm) (11 April 2006)

ADM is not liable to indemnify Pelumin because the vessel was not in class with KR as warranted and required by the policy and endorsement at the time of loss, and the risk under the delivery voyage cover had not attached as the vessel had not started the voyage from Yeo Su when the loss occurred.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 812 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: SUN ALLIANCE & LONDON INSURANCE PLC; Claimant: WATKINS SYNDICATE SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED; Claimant: SWISS RE; Claimant: GROUPAMA TRANSPORT; Defendant/part 20 Claimant: PT. ASURANSRI DAYIN MITRA TBK; Part 20 Defendant: P. T. PELUMIN AND/OR OWNERS The "No 1 DAE BU"
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment After Trial on Affidavit Evidence
Outcome
Declarations of non-liability granted in favour of ADM against Pelumin.
Legal Topics
Marine Insurance, Jurisdiction Clauses, Choice of Law, Warranties in Insurance, Negative Declaratory Relief
Insurance Law Maritime Law Conflict of Laws Marine Insurance Jurisdiction Clauses Choice of Law Warranties in Insurance Negative Declaratory Relief

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUN ALLIANCE & LONDON INSURANCE PLC

Claimant

WATKINS SYNDICATE SINGAPORE PTE LIMITED

Claimant

SWISS RE

Claimant

GROUPAMA TRANSPORT

Claimant

PT. ASURANSRI DAYIN MITRA TBK

Defendant/part 20 Claimant

P. T. PELUMIN AND/OR OWNERS The "No 1 DAE BU"

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment After Trial on Affidavit Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ADM is liable to indemnify Pelumin under the marine insurance policy for the loss of the vessel
  2. 2 Whether the vessel was warranted in class with KR at the time of loss
  3. 3 Whether delivery voyage cover was subject to vessel being in class with KR

Ratio Decidendi

ADM is not liable to indemnify Pelumin because the vessel was not in class with KR as warranted and required by the policy and endorsement at the time of loss, and the risk under the delivery voyage cover had not attached as the vessel had not started the voyage from Yeo Su when the loss occurred.

Court Disposition

Declarations of non-liability granted in favour of ADM against Pelumin.

Orders

  • ADM is not liable to indemnify Pelumin for the loss of the vessel under the policy and endorsement.
  • Negative declaratory relief granted reflecting the court's conclusions.