Valiant Insurance Company v Sealion Shipping Ltd & Toisa Horizon Inc

Valiant Insurance Company v Sealion Shipping Ltd & Toisa Horizon Inc

The initial machinery breakdown (PAM) was a continuing and operative cause of the entire period of loss of hire; the subsequent hydraulics failure did not break the chain of causation as it was closely related to reasonable mitigation efforts. Only one excess period applies under the LOH policy, and no credit is...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Valiant Insurance Company; Respondent: Sealion Shipping Ltd; Respondent: Toisa Horizon Inc.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Loss of Hire Insurance, Causation, Policy Construction, Aggregation of Claims, Excess Clauses
Insurance Law Maritime Law Loss of Hire Insurance Causation Policy Construction Aggregation of Claims Excess Clauses

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valiant Insurance Company

Appellant

Sealion Shipping Ltd

Respondent

Toisa Horizon Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chain of causation was broken by subsequent events after the initial machinery breakdown
  2. 2 Whether multiple excess periods apply under the Loss of Hire policy for multiple occurrences
  3. 3 Whether credit must be given for time saved by concurrent repairs and owners’ work

Ratio Decidendi

The initial machinery breakdown (PAM) was a continuing and operative cause of the entire period of loss of hire; the subsequent hydraulics failure did not break the chain of causation as it was closely related to reasonable mitigation efforts. Only one excess period applies under the LOH policy, and no credit is required for time saved by concurrent owners’ work.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Respondents entitled to full indemnity under the policy in the amount of US$2,100,000 plus interest