|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Mayban General Assurance BHD & Ors v Alstom Power Plants Ltd & Anor  EWHC 1038 (Comm) (07 May 2004)
Cite as:  2 Lloyd's Rep 609,  2 CLC 682,  Lloyd's Rep IR 18,  EWHC 1038 (Comm)
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
| (1) MAYBAN GENERAL ASSURANCE BHD
(2) AMI INSURANS BHD
(3) MALAYSIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE BHD
(4) SYARIKAT TAKAFUL MALAYSIA BHD
|- and -
|(1) ALSTOM POWER PLANTS LIMITED
(2) ALSTOM T & D LIMITED
Mr. Roger Stewart Q.C. (instructed by Masons) for the defendants
Crown Copyright ©
" from the commencement of movement within supplier's premises anywhere in the world, which shall include while at packing yard, to final destination anywhere in Malaysia."
" [T]his insurance shall in no case be deemed to extend to cover loss damage or expense proximately caused by delay inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured."
" 4 In no case shall this insurance cover
4.3 Loss, damage or expense caused by insufficiency or unsuitability of packing or preparation of subject matter insured . . . . .
4.4 Loss, damage or expense caused by inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured."
"The damage proved was such as did not occur and could not be expected to occur in the course of a normal transit. The inference remains, that it was due to some abnormal circumstance, some accident or casualty. We are, of course, to give effect to the rule that the plaintiff must establish his case, that he must show that the loss comes within the terms of his policies; but where all risks are covered by the policy and not merely risks of a specified class or classes, the plaintiff discharges his special onus when he has proved that the loss was caused by some event covered by the general expression, and he is not bound to go further and prove the exact nature of the accident or casualty which, in fact, occasioned his loss "
" "All risks" has the same effect as if all insurable risks were separately enumerated; for example, it includes the risk that when it happens to be raining the men who ought to use the tarpaulins to protect the wool may happen to be neglecting their duty. This concurrence is fortuitous; it is also the cause of the loss by wetting. It appears to be what happened. For wool to get wet in the rain is a casualty, though not a grave one; it is not a thing intended but is accidental; it is something which injures the wool from without; it does not develop from within. It would not happen at all if the men employed attended to their duty.
There are, of course, limits to "all risks." They are risks and risks insured against. Accordingly the expression does not cover inherent vice or mere wear and tear or British capture. It covers a risk, not a certainty; it is something, which happens to the subject-matter from without, not the natural behaviour of that subject-matter, being what it is, in the circumstances under which it is carried."
"the risk of deterioration of the goods shipped as a result of their natural behaviour in the ordinary course of the contemplated voyage without the intervention of any fortuitous external accident or casualty".
The mechanism of failure
Was the loss proximately caused by an external fortuitous event?
Were the conditions encountered by the vessel unusual?