Menu
The Creola - Malicious acts, Piracy and Perils of the Seas examined

News / / The Creola - Malicious acts, Piracy and Perils of the Seas examined

The Claimant was the owner of the 15 metre sailing yacht CREOLA, which ran aground in the Sulu Sea in the Philippines in March 2014 After failing to refloat the yacht, the Claimant was forced to abandon her, securing and padlocking the hatches before being picked up by a fishing vesselnbspThe Claimant returned to the yacht the following day to find that she had been looted several windows were broken, and many items stolen (including navigation systems, machinery, and personal effects) By the time that a surveyor inspected the yacht on 30 March 2014, she had flooded to a depth of 6 inches in some sections The yacht was then refloated and taken to the Penuwasa boat yardThe Claimant attempted to claim from the Defendant insurer, Northernreef Insurance Co SA, for the losses resulting from the grounding and subsequent looting The yacht was insured on the Northernreef Yacht Clauses, which incorporated the usual range of marine risks After considering the issue of jurisdiction and other procedural matters arising from the Defendant's lack of participation in the hearing, the court went on to address the substantive disputeGrounding DamageThe first issue was whether the damage caused by the grounding was caused by perils of the seas This requires that the grounding itself was fortuitous rather than caused by the ordinary action of the winds and waves Given that the grounding was not alleged to be deliberate or caused by wilful misconduct, and given that it could not be said to be the natural and inevitable result of the wind and waves, the court held that the grounding was fortuitousnbspThe defences pleaded by the Defendant yacht Insurer, that (i) there was a breach of the maintenance warranty, (ii) the yacht was unseaworthy owing to outdated charts, and (iii) the grounding was caused by the Assured's negligence (which was expressly excluded), were all rejected on the evidence Consistent perhaps with the CMA CGM Libra 2019 EWHC 481 (Admlty), the judge remarked that she saw the vessel's charts and navigational equipment as going to seaworthiness rather than the promissory warranty to maintain the condition of the vesselWater IngressThe second issue was whether there was coverage for the losses attributable not to the grounding but to water ingress caused by the looters breaking windows and leaving hatches opennbsp It did so with reference to four insured perils piracy, malicious acts, theft, and perils of the seasPiracyThe Claimant's argument that the water ingress was caused by piracy was dismissed in short order Piracy is defined within English law as forcible robbery at sea, and therefore a key element of robbery is the threat of or use of force towards a person Given that the yacht was unmanned at the time that it was looted, this element was not fulfilled It might be said that the door was left open to the contrary argument being made before a higher court in future by the judge's statement that it was only the strong implication of the case law that piracy requires the threat or use of force against persons, not simply propertyMalicious ActsThe leading case on the meaning of malicious acts is the recent Supreme Court decision in the B Atlantic 2019 AC 136 There, after considering the case law (and in particular the case of the Salem 1982 QB 946), the Supreme Court determined that malicious acts must involve an element of spite or ill-will It is not necessary for this ill-will to be directed at the specific property of the claimant, so long as the act causing the damage was motivated by ill-will at some property or personnbspFurther, in the Salem, where the thieves had stolen the majority of the cargo and destroyed the remainder, the destruction of the remainder was not considered a malicious act as it was a component part of the larger conspiracy carried out for personal gain rather than malice It was held not to be possible to separate out the specific actions taken by the wrongdoers, but rather their scheme must be considered as a wholeThe judge held that in the looting of the CREOLA, the looters were not motivated by malice but rather self-interest While smashing the windows of the yacht might have been considered malicious if viewed in isolation, when considered as part of the larger scheme those acts were clearly carried out for gain Accordingly, the judge held that the damage had not been caused by malicious acts, albeit not without expressing her slight reluctance to draw this conclusionTheftAs with piracy, the argument that the water ingress damage was caused by theft was rejected quickly The wording of the policy clause was to cover the theft of machinery caused by forcible entry The proximate cause of the water ingress was the forcible entry admittedly for the purposes of theft but not the theft itself, and therefore not coveredPerils of the SeasThe judge followed the position as summarised by Popplewell J in the DC Merwestone 2013 2 Lloyd's Rep 131, that water ingress is prima facie to be regarded as caused by the perils of the seas where the cause of the ingress is fortuitous (including, in that case, where the fortuity is crew negligence) The looters smashing the windows and forcing the hatches was, from the Claimant's point of view, entirely fortuitous Therefore the Claimant's claim for water ingress related damages succeedednbspConclusionAfter considering issues of quantum (including sue and labour expenses), the court awarded the Claimant the diminution in the market value of the yacht owing to the totality of the damage suffered, the value of the stolen items, and her sue and labour expensesThis article was co-authored by Keith Rowbory,nbsptrainee solicitor at Ince

Related sectors:

Related services:

Related news & insights

News / Dan Crockford appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol)

23-06-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to announce that Dan Crockford has recently been appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol).

Dan Crockford appointed as Head of Office for Ince (Bristol)

News / Court construes scope of indemnity under Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance Policy

06-06-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

Piraeus Bank A.E. v Antares Underwriting Limited and others (The ZouZou) [2022] EWHC 1169 (Comm)

Court construes scope of indemnity under Mortgagees’ Interest Insurance Policy

News / The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Tenth Edition

19-05-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to share with you the tenth edition of The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review edited by Simon Cooper. As with previous years, Ince was a member of The Law Reviews (TLR) leading panel of contributors. 

The Insurance and Reinsurance Law Review Tenth Edition

News / High Court assesses insurable interest principle and late payment damages claim

16-03-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

Quadra Commodities SA v XL Insurance Company SE & Ors [2022] EWHC 431 (Comm) This recent High Court case deals with a claim arising from the “Agroinvestgroup Fraud” which affected the Ukrainian agribusiness in early 2019. It provides useful guidance on the interpretation of all-risks cargo policies and, for the first time, how the Courts will treat claims for late payment damages under section 13A of the Insurance Act 2015.

High Court assesses insurable interest principle and late payment damages claim

Insights / Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022

02-02-2022 / Insurance

We are delighted to share with you Simon Cooper's input as Contributing Editor to this year's Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022.

Chambers Global Practice Guides - Insurance & Reinsurance 2022

News / Ince achieve top rankings in the new Chambers and Partners Greater China Region 2022 Guide

18-01-2022 / Insurance, Maritime

The firm maintained its high rankings in Shipping and Insurance across China and Hong Kong jurisdictions.

Ince achieve top rankings in the new Chambers and Partners Greater China Region 2022 Guide