PIRAEUS BANK AE v ANTARES UNDERWRITING LIMITED & Ors

PIRAEUS BANK AE v ANTARES UNDERWRITING LIMITED & Ors

The detention of the vessel was excluded from cover under the War Risks Policy by virtue of Rule 3.5, as it arose from action taken under the criminal law of Venezuela and/or on the grounds of alleged contravention of law, regardless of whether the Owners were accused of a crime. There was no constructive total loss under the War Risks Policy or section 60(2)(i) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, as recovery of the vessel became likely before the requisite period elapsed. The MII Policy did not respond because the loss was not covered or was excluded under the Owners’ policies, and the Bank could not establish a loss within the scope of the MII Policy. The proper construction of Venezuelan...

Parties
Claimant: Piraeus Bank A. E.; Defendants: Antares Underwriting Limited and Others (12 Lloyd's syndicates and Navigators Insurance Company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Claim (marine Insurance) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
War Risks Policy Exclusions, Constructive Total Loss, Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance (mii), Interpretation of Foreign Law (venezuelan Law), Policy Avoidance for Non Disclosure
Insurance Law Maritime Law Conflict of Laws War Risks Policy Exclusions Constructive Total Loss Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance (mii) Interpretation of Foreign Law (venezuelan Law) Policy Avoidance for Non Disclosure

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piraeus Bank A. E.

Claimant

Antares Underwriting Limited and Others (12 Lloyd's syndicates and Navigators Insurance Company)

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Claim (marine Insurance) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the detention of the vessel in Venezuela was covered under the War Risks Policy or excluded by criminal law exclusion clauses.
  2. 2 Whether a constructive total loss (CTL) occurred under the War Risks Policy or under section 60(2)(i) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906.
  3. 3 Whether the Bank as mortgagee could recover under the Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance (MII) Policy when the War Risks Policy was avoided or excluded.

Ratio Decidendi

The detention of the vessel was excluded from cover under the War Risks Policy by virtue of Rule 3.5, as it arose from action taken under the criminal law of Venezuela and/or on the grounds of alleged contravention of law, regardless of whether the Owners were accused of a crime. There was no constructive total loss under the War Risks Policy or section 60(2)(i) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, as recovery of the vessel became likely before the requisite period elapsed. The MII Policy did not respond because the loss was not covered or was excluded under the Owners’ policies, and the Bank could not establish a loss within the scope of the MII Policy. The proper construction of Venezuelan...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The Bank’s claim for indemnity under the Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance Policy is dismissed.
  • No order as to quantum is necessary.