Chapter 1: Introductory provisions

• General

  A number of provisions of a general nature, which are difficult to fit into the Plan’s system in any other way, are compiled in this Chapter. While the solutions in the 1964 Plan have essentially been maintained in the Chapter, Cl. 1-3 regarding contracts entered into through a broker is new, and Cl. 1-4A regarding jurisdiction and choice of law has been expanded. In the 2019 Version an arbitration clause was added as Cl. 1-4B. 

• Clause 1-1. Definitions

  This Clause was amended in 2016. The definitions of “loss” and “particular loss” in previous versions were deleted and a new definition of “broker” was added in sub-clause (d).

  Sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) remain unchanged. Sub-clause (a) requires no comments. Sub-clause (b) gives a definition of the term “the person effecting the insurance”. Norwegian insurance law distinguishes between “the person effecting the insurance”, who is the person entering into the contract with the insurer, and “the assured”, who is the person entitled to compensation from the insurer, cf. sub-clause (c). The person effecting the insurance and the assured will often be one and the same, but this is not necessarily the case, as for example where a charterer effects the insurance, whilst the shipowner is the assured.

  The definition of “the assured” in sub-clause (c) corresponds to the definition in Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs). The decisive criterion for having status as an “assured” under the insurance is that the person in question is in a position where it may have a right to compensation under the insurance contract, not that he in actual fact has such a right under the contract in question. Hence, the shipowner will have status as an assured, even if, for example, the vessel’s mortgage loans exceed the vessel’s insurable value, and the mortgagee will be entitled to the entire sum insured in the event of an insurance settlement. This is primarily significant in relation to the rules in the Plan which impose duties on the assured, cf. in particular the rules relating to the duty of care in Chapter 3 of the Plan. 

  In addition to the distinction between the person effecting the insurance and the assured, a distinction must be made between “the person effecting the insurance” and its authorised representative. A broker, agent or intermediary is not the person effecting the insurance, but the authorised representative of the person effecting the insurance (or of the insurer, if relevant).

  Sub-clause (d) defines “broker” as the entity that is instructed by the person effecting the insurance to act as an intermediary between the person effecting the insurance and the insurer. The broker is engaged by the person effecting the insurance and is acting on its behalf, cf. Cl. 1-3, sub-clause 1. In general, the broker safeguards the interests of the person effecting the insurance.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-1. Definitions

  For the purposes of this Plan the insurer means the party who under the terms of the contract has undertaken to grant insurance, the person effecting the insurance means the party who has entered into the insurance contract with the insurer, the assured means the party who is entitled under the...

• Clause 1-2. Policy

  Sub-clause 1, first sentence, was editorially amended in 2016 replacing the term “require” with “demand”.

  Sub-clause 1, first sentence, states that the person effecting the insurance may demand that a policy be issued. A “policy” according to the Plan is the insurer´s written confirmation of the insurance contract. The term “policy” in the Plan corresponds to an “insurance certificate” under Nordic ICAs. However, the term “policy” is so firmly established in marine insurance that it was deemed expedient to retain it. In contrast to the provisions contained in Nordic ICAs, the insurer has no obligation to issue a policy unless the person effecting the insurance demands it to do so. Frequently, other documents will have been issued which replace the policy, cf. below under Cl. 1-3, in which event a policy would be superfluous.

  In previous Plan versions, policy was used as a term both to describe the insurer´s written confirmation of the insurance contract as stated in Cl. 1-2 and as a reference to the insurance contract with the inclusion of the individual policy, the conditions and other documents. This was somewhat confusing, in particular because in today’s insurance marked a policy is not always issued. The 2016 Version makes a distinction between the policy as defined in Cl. 1-2 and the term “insurance contract”, which refers to the individual agreement between the person effecting the insurance and the insurer in general, thereby including both the policy - if issued - and the conditions. The distinction entails no substantive amendment. The purpose is to avoid using the term policy as a reference to the insurance contract in general. A formal policy is today in less demand due to data processed insurance documentation sufficiently evidencing the content of the insurance contract without necessitating a subsequent written confirmation issued by the insurer. 

  Thus, in 2016 the term “policy” was replaced with the term “insurance contract” in the Plan and its Commentaries where the term was referring to the all documents included as part of the insurance contract and not only the individual confirmation. This amendment is made in the following clauses: 4-8, 5-3, 8-2, 12-15, 12-16, 12-18, 13-4, 14-1, 14-2, 15-3, 15-15, 16-4, 16-6, 16-7, 16-12, 17-1, 17-3, 17-15, 17-18, 17-28, 17-31, 17-34, 17-55, 18-1, 18-32, 18-33, 18-38, 18-39, 18-40, 18-46, 18-48, 18-49, 18-54, 19-2, 19-5, 19-8, 19-9, 19-10, 19-25 and 19-26. It should be noted that the concept “insurance contract” also includes the conditions in the Plan as part of the contract, cf. the discussion under Cl. 3-22, sub-clause 1.

  The concept of a “policy” as defined in Cl. 1-2 must be distinguished from the concept of the document in which the broker confirms details of the insurance placement (in practice called “Cover Note”, “Evidence of Cover” or similar). An appointed broker issues confirmation of cover containing all relevant insurance conditions, either as a complete text or by way of reference, which is sent to the person effecting the insurance. The confirmation shall mirror the terms of the insurance agreement entered into with the insurer.

  Sub-clause 1, second sentence, relating to the content of the policy, and the third sentence concerning the possibility of relying on the assumption that no other conditions apply than those appearing from the policy, corresponds to sections in the relevant Nordic ICAs. The rule to the effect that the insurer cannot invoke conditions to which no reference is made in the policy is a natural equivalent to the principle that the person effecting the insurance will be bound by the policy unless it raises an objection, cf. sub-clause 2. However, it would not be expedient to prevent the insurer entirely from invoking provisions that do not appear in the policy or the references contained in it. If the insurer can prove that the person effecting the insurance was aware of the relevant condition and that this was to form part of the contract, the parties’ agreement shall prevail over the written contract, cf. in this respect also the solution contained in Nordic ICAs.

  Nordic ICAs lay down detailed requirements con­cerning the conditions that must be incorporated in the policy. These requirements are not sufficiently flexible for marine insurance. Paragraph 2 corresponds to § 2, second paragraph, of the 1964 Plan, but has been somewhat rewritten.

  Sections in the Nordic ICAs also contain a number of rules relating to the insurer’s duty of disclosure. This type of rule is not required in marine insurance.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-2. Policy

  When the contract is concluded, the person effecting the insurance may demand that a policy be issued. The policy shall confirm that a contract has been entered into and shall refer to the conditions. If the insurer wishes to invoke conditions which are not set out in the policy or incorporated i...

• Clause 1-3. Contracts entered into through a broker

  This Clause was amended in 2016. Sub-clause 1 was rewritten based on the new definition of “broker” in Cl. 1-1 (d). The new sub-clause 1 replaced both sub-clauses 1 and 2 in earlier versions of the Plan. In sub-clause 2 (former sub-clause 3), first sentence, the word “requires” was replaced with “demands” and new sub-clauses 3 and 4 was added. 

  Sub-clause 1 emphasizes that the broker acts on behalf of the person effecting the insurance in all cases except those were the insurer has given written authority to the broker to perform a specific function on behalf of the insurer. This provision conforms with general principles of contract law. 

  Sub-clause 2 must be seen in conjunction with Cl. 1-2 concerning the policy. The first sentence imposes a duty on the broker to assist in obtaining a policy if the contract was entered into through a broker. If the broker acts on behalf of the insurers, the broker can to the extent that it has the necessary authority issue a common policy so that it will not be necessary for the person effecting the insurance to obtain a policy from each insurer. In that event, it should be clearly evident from the policy that it is issued by authority and on whose behalf the broker is signing, cf. second sentence.

  If the broker fails to state these facts, it risks becoming directly liable under the insurance contract. If the broker issues the policy on behalf of the insurer, it is acting as the representative of the insurer, and not of the person effecting the insurance. Any errors on the part of the broker in connection with the issuance of the policy will therefore be the insurer’s risk.

  If a policy is issued, the duty to raise objections set forth in Cl. 1-2, sub-clause 2, shall apply. This means that the person effecting the insurance must check the policy against any underlying agreement to see if the policy is correct. If the policy differs from the underlying agreement, and the person effecting the insurance fails to object, it risks that the policy takes precedence over the agreement.

  Sub-clause 3 gives the broker authority to receive premium returns or claims settlements. The purpose of the new clause is to simplify the documentation procedures for the parties. The insurer does not need to obtain confirmation of the broker’s authority every time any payment shall be made, provided always that the loss payee provision in the insurance contract is followed. It also follows that any payment by the insurer is binding also on the person effecting the insurance and/or the assured. Second sentence of sub-clause 4 makes it clear that the person effecting the insurance and/or the assured at any time may change or withdraw the power of attorney. In this event, the insurer must pay directly to the person effecting the insurance or the assured as appropriate. Return of premium will normally be made to the person effecting the insurance as the party responsible for payment of the premium, cf. Cl. 6-1. Settlements of claims will normally go to the assured, being the party entitled to compensation of claims, cf. Cl. 1-1 (c). Any change or withdrawal of the broker’s authority to receive payments from the insurer will only take effect upon its receipt of the notice. The notice may be sent through the broker, but will not take effect until the broker conveys the notice to the insurer. Therefore, if it is a matter of urgency it is advisable to send the notice directly to the insurer.

  Sub-clause 4 applies to premium payments. The person effecting the insurance will normally wish to pay the premium via his broker and leave it to the broker to distribute the premium to the participating insurers. As reiterated in sub-clause 5, according to sub-clause 1 the broker shall be deemed to act on behalf of the person effecting the insurance. In this context, payment of premium to the broker does not satisfy the duty of the person effecting the insurance to pay the premium to the insurer. If the broker for some reason does not forward the premium to the insurer, this is the risk of the person effecting the insurance. Interest on overdue premium according to Cl. 6-1, sub-clause 2, may accrue, and in a worst-case scenario the person effecting the insurance may have to pay the premium once again to the insurer if e.g. the broker should be declared bankrupt.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-3. Contracts entered into through a broker

  The broker acts on behalf of the person effecting the insurance in all cases except those where the insurer has given written authority to the broker to perform a specific function on behalf of the insurer. If the person effecting the insurance demands that a policy be issued in accordance with C...

• Clause 1-4A. Jurisdiction and choice of law

  This Clause was amended in the 2013 Plan to adapt the Plan to its future application in Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The word “Nordic” in Cl. 1-4A embraces only Denmark (including Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland (including Åland), Norway and Sweden. Iceland is a non-Nordic country in the context of Cl. 1-4A. In the 2019 Version of the Plan, sub-clause 2 was amended and a new Cl. 1-4B on arbitration inserted, see below on this Clause.

  The solution set out as standard in this Clause is that any dispute arising out of the contract can be settled by commencing proceedings against the claims leader. Chapter 9 defines the powers of the claims leader. These do not extend to all matters concerning the insurance, and the Commentary to Cl. 9-1 mentions that in practice it is sometimes necessary to make a distinction between the “rating leader” and the “claims leader”. The former has the power to bind following insurers in such matters as premium adjustments due to changes in vessel values, additional premiums for breach of trading warranties, rating of additional vessels and similar matters. It is not always the case that the same insurer is both rating and claims leader and in some cases there may be separate rating leaders for different geographical markets. It is not possible in a standard contract such as the Plan to provide solutions for all the various arrangements that assureds and their brokers might find most suitable for their requirements.

  Sub-clause 1 regulates jurisdiction and background law for any conflict associated with an insurance contract effected on Plan conditions and with a Nordic claims leader. There are similarities between the laws of the four Nordic countries, mainly as a consequence of co-operation in certain areas of private law including insurance, but each country has its own completely independent legislature and court system. Cl. 1-4A uses the term “law and venue of the claims leader”. If the claims leader is Norwegian then Norwegian law will govern the insurance contract, and any dispute will be subject to the jurisdiction of the court where the claims leader has its head office. Correspondingly, if the claims leader is Danish with its head office in Copenhagen, the insurance contract is governed by Danish law and disputes must be referred to the court which according to Danish law is the competent court. The rules in sub-clause 1 and 3 are in accordance with the provisions contained in Article 9 (1) (a) and (c) of the Lugano Convention, which provides that both the claims leader and the co-insurer may be sued in the claims leader’s State of domicile. On the other hand, the assured is precluded from invoking against the Nordic claims leader the other venue rules contained in Article 9 of the Lugano Convention, as well as the other venue rules contained in Section 3. This departure from the Convention is valid as it concerns insurance related to ocean-going vessels or offshore structures, cf. Article 13 (5) cf. Article 14 of the Lugano Convention.

  The Insurance Contract Act of the relevant Nordic country becomes applicable as background law. However, there are very few rules in the ICAs of the Nordic countries that are mandatory for this type of marine insurance. The relevant ICA must be subordinate to the wording of the insurance contract and Plan conditions including solutions that follow by necessary implication. Nor is it necessary to state that the individual insurance contract takes precedence over the provisions of the Plan. Background law includes the rules governing sources of law and methodology of the relevant Nordic country. These will thus determine any issue concerning precedence between the various sources of law.

  The provisions also apply where a non-Nordic assured enters into an agreement with a Nordic claims leader on Plan conditions. In such cases, the assured may wish to have the right to institute proceedings in its home country. There is nothing preventing the parties from entering into such agreement provided it is in writing; a verbal agreement is not sufficient, cf. sub-clause 4 and below. If no agreement in writing has been made, sub-clause 1 prevails and the venue where the claims leader’s head office is located must be used. Nor is there anything to prevent the parties from agreeing in writing on the background law of another country. However, it must be emphasized that the Plan is very closely bound up with the law and practice of the Nordic countries, especially Norway. Applying any other law as background law will normally give rise to considerable difficulties. Sub-clause 4 states that the provisions in sub-clause 1 may only be departed from if the insurer gives its written consent. The provision applies both to choice of law and jurisdiction. Under Finnish and Swedish law any dispute on marine insurance matters must be placed before the local official adjuster before the dispute can be brought before the domestic courts. Cl. 1-4A will of course be subordinated to applicable local mandatory statutes. See further Cl. 5-5 and the Commentary to this Clause. 

  Sub-clause 2 was amended in the 2019 Version. The previous clause stated that the default choice of law was Norwegian, but had no regulation of jurisdiction. The amended clause states that disputes in such cases are referred to arbitration according to Cl. 1-4B, where place of arbitration and background law for the non-Nordic claims leader is regulated in sub-clause 4. The reason for the amendment is given in the Commentary to this clause. In relation to background law, the reference to Norwegian law is retained for arbitration in non-Nordic countries.

  Sub-clause 3 allows an assured to sue the co-insurers in the claims leader’s venue. In contrast to sub-clause 1, this is an option (cf. the words “may be sued”). The assured may instead institute proceedings where the various co-insurers are domiciled or any other available jurisdiction. The provision does not apply only to the claims leader’s general venue (home venue). It is also possible to sue the co-insurers in all the venues where the claims leader, according to law or contract, is obliged to accept lawsuits. However, this option presumes that Cl. 1-4A applies. If the parties have agreed arbitration according to Cl. 1-4B, obviously sub-clause 3 does not apply. Further, according to Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 2, arbitration is the default rule for a non-Nordic claims leader. This means that sub-clause 3 only applies if the insurance is effected with a non-Nordic claims leader and the parties have agreed ordinary court proceedings with a specific jurisdiction. 

  The Plan does not contain any explicit reference to the Commentary and its significance as a basis for resolving disputes. This is in keeping with the approach of the Norwegian 1996 Plan. Nevertheless the Commentary shall still carry more weight as a legal source than is normally the case with the Traveau Preparatoire of statutes. The Commentary as a whole has been thoroughly discussed and approved by the Nordic Revision Committee, and it must therefore be regarded as an integral component of the standard contract which the Plan constitutes. However, in case of any obvious conflict between the Plan text and the Commentary, the text shall prevail as the primary legal source over the Commentary.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-4A. Jurisdiction and choice of law

  If insurance based on this Plan is effected with a Nordic claims leader, it is agreed that legal proceedings against the claims leader concerning any matter, dispute or disagreement of any kind which may arise during or in connection with or which in any way concerns the insurance contract, may...

• Clause 1-4B. Arbitration Clause

  Cl. 1-4B was new in the 2019 Version. 

  There are two main reasons to insert an arbitration clause as an alternative to ordinary court proceedings. The first reason is that several insurers today refer to arbitration as their main dispute resolution solution, and it is therefore convenient to have a standard clause in the Plan that the parties can include. 

  The second reason concerns uncertainty of the regulation on court jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments after Brexit. The EU legislation on court jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial law is based on the revised Brussel I Directive of 2012, which is applicable also for Norway and Denmark through the Lugano Convention of 2007. The UK is however not a signatory party to the Lugano Convention, and this creates uncertainty about recognition and enforcement of EU/EFTA court decisions in the UK and UK court decisions in the EU/EFTA states. This is primarily a problem when the insurance is effected with non-Nordic claims leaders where jurisdiction in the UK often is a natural choice. The committee is therefore of the view that it is more convenient to refer disputes with non-Nordic claims leaders to arbitration, where recognition and enforcement is based on the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York, 1958), cf. Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 2. It should however be noted that this may also be a problem for Nordic claims leaders in cases where there are co-insurers domiciled in the UK, and the question will be enforcement of Nordic judgments against such co-insurers. Even so, the default rule for this situation is ordinary court proceedings, cf. below. 

  Sub-clause 1 states that “If the parties have agreed in writing that disputes shall be solved by arbitration, the following applies instead of Cl. 1-4A”. This means that the ordinary jurisdiction and background law Clause applies if the parties have not made a specific agreement to the contrary. The reason for keeping this solution as the default rule is that it is uncertain to what extent the Nordic shipowners in fact want to refer all disputes to arbitration. As mentioned above under Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 1, with reference to sub-clause 4, there are rules in Finnish and Swedish law stating that any marine insurance dispute must be placed before the local official adjuster before the dispute can be brought before the domestic courts. A reference to arbitration would depart from this system and this may not be a preferable choice.  

  Sub-clause 2 is the Nordic Offshore and Maritime Arbitration Association’s (Nordic Arbitration) arbitration clause sub-clause 1 and 3. The Nordic Maritime and Offshore Arbitration Association was established in 2017, and has developed arbitration regulation and best practice guidelines to fit Nordic legal tradition and culture. It is therefore convenient to refer arbitration to this system. 

  Sub-clause 3 regulates the place of arbitration and background law for an insurance effected with a Nordic claims leader, and conforms to the regulation in Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 2. 

  Sub-clause 4 regulates the place of arbitration and background law for an insurance effected with a non-Nordic claims leader. It follows from Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 3, that this rule applies as a default rule if the parties have not made a specific agreement on jurisdiction, forum and choice of law. If jurisdiction is not agreed, the case is referred to arbitration in Oslo, cf. first sentence. In this case, it follows from the second sentence that Norwegian background law applies. However, if the parties have agreed to arbitration in another Nordic country it is more natural to apply the law of this country. This solution also conforms to the provision for Nordic claims leaders in sub-clause 3. If the parties have agreed on arbitration in a non-Nordic country, however, the background law is again Norwegian. The Plan is mainly based on Nordic and Norwegian law and practice, and it is not convenient to combine the Plan with another legal system, cf. above on the Commentary to Cl.1-4A, sub-clause 1. If the parties have agreed on ordinary court proceedings and jurisdiction but not agreed on background legislation, Cl. 1-4B, sub-clause 4, on Norwegian background law should be applied by analogy.

  According to sub-clause 5, any changes in the terms of the agreement set out in sub-clauses 2, 3 and 4 must be in writing. This conforms to Cl. 1-4A, sub-clause 4. 

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-4B. Arbitration Clause

  If the parties have agreed in writing that disputes shall be referred to arbitration, the following applies instead of Cl. 1-4A: Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this insurance contract, including any disputes regarding the existence, breach, termination or validity hereof, shall ...

• Clause 1-5. Insurance period

  This provision corresponds to Cl. 4 of the 1964 Plan and relevant sections of the Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs). Sub-clause 4 was added in the 2003 Version of the 1996 Plan. Sub-clause 4 was further amended in the 2007 version in connection with the amendment to Cl. 12-2. Changes were also made in the Commentary. The specification of the time in sub-clause 2 was changed in the 2010 version, at which time changes were also made in the Commentary on sub-clause 3.

  The rule contained in sub-clause 1 is new and corresponds to relevant Nordic ICAs, relating to term of liability. The Nordic ICAs contain more detailed rules than Cl. 4 of the 1964 Plan relating to the inception of the insurance. These do not fit in very well with marine insurance. This applies in particular to rules which governs the insurer’s liability in those cases where it is clear that the request for insurance will be granted by the insurer.

  Sub-clause 2 corresponds to Cl. 4 of the 1964 Plan, but the wording is derived from relevant Nordic ICAs. However, the time is tied to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). The time specified for cessation of liability in sub-clause 2, second sentence, was changed in the 2010 version from 24:00 hours to 23:59:59 hours because the time 24:00 hours does not exist. This provision shall only apply if nothing else is agreed by the parties. If an insurance is transferred upon termination from one insurer to another, it is important that the parties take into account any differences in times in the insurance conditions in order to avoid creating periods of time with no cover.

  Relevant Nordic ICAs provide that the insurer cannot reserve the right to amend the conditions during the insurance period. However, this is not a mandatory rule for marine insurance. If the insurer wants to make such a reservation, this will accordingly take precedence over the rule contained in Nordic ICAs.

  The rule contained in sub-clause 3 is new, and relates to relevant Nordic ICAs, which set out the rule concerning the insurer’s duty to give notice if it does not wish to renew the insurance. Failure to give notice results in the insurance contract being renewed for one year. In marine insurance the insurer should, however, be free to decide whether or not to renew the insurance, see the first sentence, which introduces a point of departure that is opposite to that applied in relevant Nordic ICAs: the insurance is terminated unless otherwise agreed. The reference to Cl. 1-2 entails that the rules relating to documentation and the duty to raise objections are correspondingly applicable in the event of a renewal.

  The question of an extension of the insurance when the vessel has sustained damage which must be repaired for the purpose of making it compliant with technical and operational safety requirements and it is uncertain whether the assured is entitled to claim for a total loss is governed by Cl. 10-10 and Cl.11-8.

  Rules relating to extension where the insurance terminates because of notice of termination or certain other circumstances are included in the relevant rules on termination, see Cl. 3-14, sub-clause 2, Cl. 3-17, sub-clause 1, third sentence, and Cl. 3-27. The duration of a voyage insurance is regulated in Cl. 10-9.

  If the vessel has changed hull insurer and there is doubt as to whether damage is to be covered by the former or latter insurer, the question will normally have to be decided on the basis of the rules contained in Cl. 2-11. Both insurers will, in that event, be obliged to make a proportionate payment on account, cf. Cl. 5-7.

  Sub-clause 4 was added in the 2003 version, and a further addition was made to it in the 2007 version. The provision solves a previously controversial issue concerning the period of insurance in connection with multi-year insurance contracts. Insurance normally runs for one year at a time, and many of the provisions in the Plan stipulate an insurance period of one year. Recently, however, multi-year insurance contracts have become increasingly common, giving rise to the question of whether the insurance period is to consist of the entire term of the insurance contract, or whether the point of departure is to be an insurance period of one year.

  The provision states that if the parties have agreed that the insurance is to attach for a period longer than one year, the insurance period shall nevertheless be deemed to be one year in relation to certain provisions. This applies to Cl. 2-2 regarding the calculation of insurable value, Cl. 2-11 regarding incidence of loss, Cl. 5-3, last sub-clause, regarding calculation of rates of exchange , Cl. 5-4, sub-clause 3, regarding calculation of interest on the compensation, Cl. 6-3, sub-clause 1, regarding payment of premium in the event of total loss, Cl. 12-2 regarding the right to cash compensation,  Cl. 16-1, sub-clause 3, regarding calculation of the loss of time, sub-clause 4, regarding calculation of reinstatement premium and Cl. 16-14 regarding liability for repairs carried out after expiry of the insurance period. Further comments on the rule may be found under the respective provisions.

  If the insurance period has been fixed in full years, the provision poses no problem. Starting from the date on which the insurer’s liability attaches, the total period is then divided into two or more one-year periods, In practice, however, one finds examples of insurance periods consisting of one or more full years with additional months, e.g. 1 ½ years, or 3 years and 3 months. In these cases, too, each full year or 12-month period is calculated individually from the date on which the insurance was effected; the “extra” time that does not constitute a full year then becomes a separate insurance period consisting of the relevant number of months.

  On the other hand, the entire term of the insurance contract must be regarded as the basic insurance period in relation to Cl. 6-4 and Cl. 6-5 of the Plan regarding the increase/reduction of premium, and Cl. 10-10 and Cl. 11-8 regarding extension of the insurance. The same applies with regard to the question of renewal, cf. Cl. 1-5, sub-clause 3, and Cl. 17-2.  Under the 2003 version, this also applied to Cl. 18-10 regarding the right to compensation for damage to offshore structures. However, the provision in Cl. 18-10 was deleted in the 2007 version because it was rendered superfluous by the general rule regarding the right to compensation that was added in Cl. 12-2 of the 2007 version. In relation to Cl. 12-2, it has been decided that the “end of the insurance period” means the end of a one-year period, cf. the Commentary on this provision.

  The main rule, therefore, is to divide up the total term of the insurance contract into several insurance periods or periods of one year in relation to certain provisions, while otherwise retaining the basic principle that the insurance period is the entire term agreed upon in the insurance contract.

  This provision only applies where an insurance period longer than one year is agreed. If an insurance period shorter than one year is agreed, this shorter period also applies in relation to the aforementioned provisions.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 1-5. Insurance period

  Unless otherwise agreed, the insurer's liability attaches when the person effecting the insurance or the insurer has approved the conditions stipulated by the other party. If the insurer's liability under the agreement attaches on a certain day without any indication of time, liability commences ...