Agreement In Marine Insurance

Ship and equipment insurance is included in hull insurance, there are several classifications of vessels such as ocean vessels, sailboats, contractors, fleet policies at risk, etc. 4) Faithfully in good faith: The owner of the goods to be transported must disclose to the insurance company all relevant information while insuring his goods. The premium is called in return in this agreement. The bonus is then paid when the contract is executed. 3) Compensation contract: marine insurance is a compensation contract and insurance is only responsible to the extent of the damage actually suffered. and at the time of the loss, interest in a ship contract must exist at the time of the loss, even if it may not have existed at the time of the insurance authorization. This is necessary when one considers the commercial practice that there are all the possibilities for selling and purchasing goods during transit. However, the MIA has provided that if the goods are insured, the insured is „lost or not“ to recover the loss, even though he may have acquired his shares after the loss, unless he was aware of the loss and the insurer was not aware of the loss. If the insured was not interested at the time of the loss, he or she cannot, by deed or choice, acquire interest after knowledge of the loss. The result is both a contingent and an unachievable interest.

A partial interest is also insurable. There must be an insurable interest, otherwise the agreement and the policy are null and void. Anyone who has their goods transported by sea voyage and who can be affected has an insurable interest. In the ship insurance industry, it is customary to issue agreed value policies. The agreed value is conclusive between the insurer and the insured, unless it is an involuntary error or fraud. As far as ship insurance is concerned, the transfer only applies after payment of damage. The insurer has the right to recover the rights and remedies only up to the amount it has paid. Indeed, the insured should point out that he would probably have much more detailed information about the risk and that the retention of circumstances that mislead the insurer would amount to fraud, even if it could be done in error without fraudulent intent.