Section 1: Insurable interest and insurable value

• General

  This Section corresponds to Chapter 2, Section 1, of the 1964 Plan.

  Cl. 5 of the 1964 Plan contained a provision as to what interests were deemed to be covered. This provision has been deleted; the scope of the relevant insurance will appear from the rules relating to the individual lines of insurance. It is nevertheless not the intention to change the reality behind the provision, viz. that it is not the object itself, but the assured’s economic interest in the object, which is covered by the insurance. The interest terminology is a practical means of creating flexibility and variation in the insurance. In particular, it must be emphasized that it is possible to let several persons each insure their separate interest in the object (e.g., owner and mortgagee), and it is relatively simple to state the items of loss in respect of which the assured may claim cover under each individual insurance (the interest in the vessel’s capital value is covered by hull insurance, the income interests by freight insurance).

  However, attention should be drawn to the fact that the word “interest” is also used with a somewhat different meaning in marine insurance, viz. as a designation of certain capital or income interests which are not covered by the ordinary hull or freight insurance, cf. Chapter 14 relating to hull and freight interest insurances.

• Clause 2-1. Insurance unrelated to any interest

  This provision is identical to Cl. 6 of the 1964 Plan.

  The provision establishes the traditional precondition for a valid insurance contract, i.e. that the assured must have an economic interest in the subject-matter insured. A “wager insurance”, where it has been clear from the outset that no insurable interest existed, is therefore invalid. Similarly, the assured must be precluded from invoking the insurance after the assured has ceased to hold the interest, for example, when the vessel is definitely confiscated or passes to a new owner. Nor will the new owner of the vessel normally acquire the position of assured under the insurance contract, cf. Cl. 8-1, sub-clause 1, to the effect that the assured must be specifically named in the contract, and cf. Cl. 3-21 relating to change of ownership.

  The question regarding insurance unrelated to any interest is currently not regulated in relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs), but the same result follows from Section 12 of the Norwegian Act no. 11 of 22 May 1902 relating to the coming into force of the penal code (Straffelovens ikrafttredelseslov). The fact that the corresponding provision has been lifted out of the Norwegian ICA could be an argument in favour of it also being deleted from the Plan. There is a need for some information on the interest as the subject-matter of insurance in the Commentary regardless, however, and the provision should therefore remain for pedagogical reasons, particularly with regard to those assureds who are not familiar with the Norwegian market.

  The provision is based on the traditional principle that it is not the object itself, but the assured’s economic interest in the object, which is the subject-matter of the insurance. It is, however, difficult to determine the requirements the interest must meet in order to be insurable. A point of departure may be that it must be possible to base the interest on any existing economic relationship between the assured and the vessel (owner, mortgagee, charterer, user, requisitioner). Further, the interest must have economic value so that the assured will suffer an economic loss if the interest is destroyed. However, a certain margin must be given for subjective assessments in the valuation of the interest. Accordingly, it is not a requirement that the interest must have a value which is measurable according to objective criteria. When agreed insurable values are used, the assured’s own assessment of the interest must carry substantial weight. The necessary guarantee against abuse is implicit in the rules relating to revision of the valuation, cf. Cl. 2-3.

  The provision contained in Cl. 2-1 does not solve the question whether the interest is “legal”, cf. former Section 35 of the ICA, currently NL 5-1-2. This question is essentially solved in the Plan through Cl. 3-16 relating to illegal activities. If the legality of the assured’s interest is at issue in relation to matters other than the use of the vessel for illegal purposes, the question must be decided on the basis of the criteria that apply generally in insurance law, cf. NL 5-1-2. In the application of the rule, due regard must be had to the nature of the provisions that are breached, the extent of the illegal activities, the extent to which the assured is aware of the facts, the connection between the illegal situation and the interest insured, and whether there is causation between the illegal situation and the damage.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-1. Insurance unrelated to any interest

  A contract concerning insurance which does not relate to any interest is void.

• Clause 2-2. Insurable value

  Sub-clause 1, second sentence, and sub-clause 2 were added in 2016.

  Sub-clause 1, first sentence, states that the insurable value is the full value of the interest at the inception of the insurance. This provision differs from general insurance law, where the insurable value is deter­mined at the time of loss, cf. relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts. The reason for the special rule in marine insurance was that it might be difficult to determine the value at the time of loss if the vessel was far away. With today’s communications systems, there is every possibility of determining the value at the time of the loss, regardless of where the vessel might be. Never­the­less, the traditional solution in marine insurance has been maintained on this point.

  Further rules governing the time for the “inception of the insurance” are contained in Cl. 1-5 of the Plan. The time poses no problems for ordinary insurance contracts with a term of one year. If it has been agreed that the insurance is to attach for a period of more than one year, it follows from Cl. 1-5, sub-clause 4, which was added in the 2003 version, that the insurance period is to be deemed to be one year in relation to Cl. 2-2. Further details regarding the calculation of the various insurance periods are set out in the Commentary on Cl. 1-5.

  As regards some interests, the value will be explicitly regulated in the various insurance conditions. This is not the case with hull insurance, in which it is the market value which forms the basis for the calculation of the insurable value.

  In loss of hire insurance, cf. Chapter 16, it seems more natural to have an insurable value for the anticipated daily income, cf. Cl. 16-5, and tie the total limitation of the insurer’s liability to a certain number of days.

  If the parties do not agree to fix the insurable value, the insurable value is called “open”. According to sub-clause 1, second sentence, the parties may by agreement fix the insurable value at a certain amount to avoid discussion on the market value at any given time. For ocean-going vessels, agreement on the insurable value is rather common. A fixed insurable value is called agreed insurable value, cf. Cl. 2-3, and corresponds to a “valued policy” or “agreed value” in the English market. 

  Sub-clause 2 states that the sum or sums insured in the insurance contract shall be deemed to constitute agreed insurable value(s) unless the circumstances clearly indicate otherwise. The term “circumstances” is taken from Cl. 16-6, and refers to matters or arguments that are relevant for the interpretation of the insurance contract. Examples are information from the negotiation between the parties, indicating that the intention of the parties was to keep the value open.  The term circumstances in this respect does not include circumstances occurring after the contract is entered into, which may subsequently lead to a change in the value of the vessel.  In such case, the value must be renegotiated by the parties or amended in accordance with Cl. 2-3.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-2. Insurable value

  The insurable value is the full value of the interest at the inception of the insurance. The parties may by agreement fix the insurable value at a certain amount, hereinafter called agreed insurable value, cf. Cl. 2-3.  The sum or sums insured in the insurance contract shall be deemed to constitu...

• Clause 2-3. Agreed insurable value

  The word “assessed” was replaced with “agreed" throughout the Plan and the Commentary in 2016. Sub-clause 2 was amended in the 2019 Version.

  Cl. 2-3 regulates the extent to which an agreed insurable value is binding on the insurer. For the shipowners, it is important that a valuation is unconditionally binding on the insurer: an expanding shipowner’s building programme is based on the vessels’ current freight income or, if a vessel is lost, on its insured value, and the mortgagees as well need to know that they can rely on the hull valuation.

  The provision applies to all types of insurance. The term “the subject-matter insured” must therefore in this connection be interpreted to be synonymous with “the interest insured”.

  Under this provision, the insurer may challenge the valuation even if the person effecting the insurance has given its information in good faith. As regards the determination of the valuation, the insurer should have an unconditional right to be given correct information, and the risk of any errors should lie with the person effecting the insurance.

  If misleading information has been given about the properties which are material to the valuation, the valuation will be “set aside”. This means that the agreed valuation ceases to be in effect in its entirety, so that the value of the object insured must be determined according to the rule relating to open insurance value in Cl. 2-2, i.e. the full value of the interest at the inception of the contract. It is, in other words, not sufficient to reduce the valuation to the highest amount that would have been acceptable without conflicting with Cl. 2-3.

  In relevant Nordic ICAs, reference is made to the rules relating to the duty of disclosure in the event that the person effecting the insurance has given incorrect information of importance for the valuation. In marine insurance, however, the rules relating to the duty of disclosure in Cl. 3-1 et seq. are not applicable to misleading information which is only of importance for the determination of the valuation. The consequences of the misleading information in such cases are exhaustively regulated in Cl. 2-3; there is no need for further sanctions in the form of exemption from liability or cancellation of contract as allowed by the rules relating to the duty of disclosure. However, in the event of fraud, it follows from general rules of contract law that the agreement is void. And if information has been given which is misleading in relation to the valuation as well as significant for the actual effecting of the insurance, the insurer will obviously, in addition to a reduction of the valuation, have the right to invoke Cl. 3-1 et seq. concerning exemption from liability for damage and, possibly, cancellation of the insurance.

  The provision only regulates the setting aside of an excessively high valuation. The insurer should not have the right to demand that a valuation which is clearly too low be set aside with the effect that under-insurance will arise in the event of partial damage. Such a demand will hardly have any legitimate basis: to cover repair costs he has received a premium (casualty premium), which is determined on the basis of the size, type and age of the vessel, in principle independently of the valuation.

  Sub-clause 2 was amended in the 2019 Version and establishes a right for both parties to demand an adjustment of the agreed insurable value in the event of a significant change in the value of the interest insured resulting from change in fundamental expectations upon which the insurance contract was based. There must have been a change that is unrelated to the acts or influence of either of the parties and the change must be of a kind that affects the express or clearly implied assumptions that were the basis for the parties‘ agreement about the insured vessel’s value. If the agreed insurable value is based on the current market value of the vessel and there is a significant change of the market value after the insurance contract was entered into, both parties may require a change of value. If on the other side the basis for the insurable value was mainly based on the contractual arrangements for the vessel, market fluctuation might not be relevant. The same must apply if the insurable value was agreed on the basis of outstanding loan arrangements with a bank. It is only the valuation which can be changed in this manner; the insurance contract remains in force.

  If the parties do not agree as to whether or not the conditions for an adjustment of the valuation are met, or about a new valuation amount, sub-clause 3 provides that the decision shall be made by a Nordic average adjuster appointed by the assured.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-3. Agreed insurable value

  The insurer may demand to have the agreed insurable value set aside only if the person effecting the insurance has given misleading information about characteristics of the subject-matter insured that are relevant for the agreement. If  there has been a significant change in the value of the...

• Clause 2-4. Under-insurance

  This Clause is identical to Cl. 9 of the 1964 Plan and corresponds to relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs). 

  The provision maintains the principle of under-insurance if the sum insured is less than the insurable value, which means that the insurer shall merely compensate the part of the loss that corresponds to the proportion that the sum insured has to the insurable value, cf. first sentence.

  Until 1989, the Plan rule relating to under-insurance was in accordance with the non-mandatory point of departure in Section 40 of the Norwegian Insurance Contracts Act 1930. The main rule has now been amended to insurance on first risk: “Unless otherwise provided in the insurance contract, the assured is entitled to full compensation for his economic loss”. However, most non-marine insurance conditions maintain the principle of under-insurance. The Committee considered whether the solution of the relevant Nordic ICAs should be followed in marine insurance, but reached the conclusion that the most expedient thing to do is to maintain the traditional point of departure of under-insurance. This is particularly due to the fact that, in marine insurance, co-insurance is common, and that the combination of the first-risk principle as a non-mandatory point of departure and the pro-rata principle for co-insurance seems unnecessarily complicated. 

  In so far as the insurable value has been agreed, the question of under-insurance will have already been determined when the insurance is effected. Furthermore, the rule relating to under-insurance does not apply merely to the actual compensation, but also to the insurer’s right to take over proceeds and claims against third parties, affecting the insured loss. This appears from Cl. 5-13, sub-clause 2, and Cl. 5-19, sub-clause 1, second sentence. 

  In relation to co-insurance, the rule applies only to co-insurance in the form of several parallel insurances where each individual insurer becomes liable for that proportion of the sum insured for which it is liable in relation to the aggregate insurable value. If the co-insurance is effected in the form of insurances in several layers, each layer must be regarded as an independent interest. It is therefore necessary to calculate a separate insurance value for each layer and look at the sum insured within the relevant layer in relation to the insurable value for that particular layer. The rules relating to under-insurance are applicable to co-insurers within the same layer, but not to the relationship between several co-insurers who are each liable for their own layer. 

  The provision contained in Cl. 2-4 does not regulate the question of the co-insurers’ liability in the event of collision damage, in view of the fact that there is no insurable value for such liability. However, it is generally assumed that the distribution of liability among the co-insurers must be based on the hull value.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-4. Under-insurance

  If the sum insured is lower than the insurable value, the insurer shall only compensate a portion of the loss corresponding to the proportion that the sum insured bears to the insurable value. If a valuation has been set aside in accordance with Cl. 2-3, sub-clause 1, above, it shall nevertheless...

• Clause 2-5. Over-insurance

  This provision is identical to the provision in Cl. 10 of the 1964 Plan. The same result follows indirectly from relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs).

  Sub-clause 1 is identical to the earlier provision and requires no comments. Sub-clause 2 relating to fraud is not found in Nordic ICAs, but is in accordance with non-marine insurance conditions.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-5. Over-insurance

  If the sum insured exceeds the insurable value, the insurer shall only compensate the loss up to the insurable value. If the interest is over-insured with fraudulent intent, the contract is not binding on the insurer.

• Clause 2-6. Liability of the insurer when the interest is also insured with another insurer

  The provision corresponds to Cl. 11 of the 1964 Plan and relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs).

  Sub-clause 1 establishes the principle of primary joint and several liability in the event of “double insurance”, i.e. when the same peril is insured with two or more insurers, and corresponds to the rule contained in Cl. 11 of the 1964 Plan. Basically it corresponds to the Norwegian Insurance Contracts Act Section 6-3, first sub-clause: “If the same loss is covered by several insurances, the assured may choose which insurances he or she wishes to use until the assured has obtained the total compensation to which he or she is entitled”. However, the wording of relevant Nordic ICAs does not rule out subsidiarity clauses (clauses to the effect that one insurance is subsidiary in relation to another), while there is a desire in marine insurance to keep the door open for such clauses, cf. the Commentary on sub-clause below. The earlier wording to the effect that each insurer is liable “in accordance with their respective contracts” has therefore been maintained.

  Sub-clause 1 is applicable to three situations. In the first place, it applies to double insurance in the form of ordinary co-insurance. Here the individual sums insured will in the aggregate correspond to the valuation and each individual insurer will be fully liable according to his contract, regardless of the fact that other insurances have also been effected (cf., however, Chapter 9, where a number of aspects of the internal relationship between the co-insurers are regulated).

  In the second place, the provision becomes significant when there is “double insurance” in the traditional sense, i.e. where several parallel insurances are effected which in the aggregate will give the assured more compensation than the loss it has suffered. The provision in Cl. 2-6 establishes that, in this case as well, the insurers are primarily jointly and severally liable to the assured within the framework of the compensation to which the assured is entitled. The further settlement between the insurers is regulated in more detail in Cl. 2-7.

  The third situation where there is double insurance is when a loss is covered partly under the primary cover of an insurance, partly as costs to avert or minimise the loss under another insurance. In principle, this loss should be covered under the insurance which covers costs to avert or minimise the loss, cf. below under Cl. 2-7. But also here the assured must initially be entitled to claim damages from both insurers according to Cl. 2-6.

  The size of the compensation to which the assured “is entitled” will depend on the insurance conditions. If the conditions authorize cover of varying amounts, it is the highest amount which is decisive for the size of the claim. Until the assured has recovered this amount, it may bring a claim against any of the insurers it wishes within the terms of the conditions which the relevant insurer has accepted.

  The provision contained in sub-clause 1 is only applicable in the event of a conflict between two insurances covering the same peril. Hence, a conflict between an insurance against marine perils and an insurance against war perils is not a double insurance according to Cl. 2-6. Nor is it double insurance if the cover is divided into several layers. In the event of layer insurances, each layer must, as mentioned above in the Commentary on Cl. 2-5, be regarded as an independent interest. The insurer under one layer therefore does not become jointly and severally liable with the insurer under another layer, and a loss cannot be transferred from one layer to another if the insurer under one layer is, in exceptional cases, unable to cover a loss.

  Sub-clause 2 is new and regulates the settlement if one insurance has been made subsidiary. The rule here is that the insurer who has subsidiary liability is only liable for the amount for which the assured does not have cover with other insurers. It should be superfluous to say this in the Plan text; the solution follows from the actual subsidiarity principle and does not give rise to any particular problems. However, because of the special rule contained in sub-clause 3, see below, an explicit provision was found to be the most expedient.

  If several insurances are made subsidiary, there is a risk that the assured may be left without settlement because both or all of the insurers may invoke their subsidiarity clauses. Accordingly, in such cases, there is a need for a rule to protect the assured. A rule of this type was previously contained in Section 43 of the Norwegian Insurance Contracts Act 1930, which imposed on the insurers a primary pro-rata liability or, in the alternative, joint and several liability. This provision was considered unnecessary under the system in the Norwegian ICA 1989. During the Plan revision, it was decided that in such cases a primary joint and several liability should be imposed on the insurers vis-à-vis the assured, see sub-clause 3, which makes sub-clause 1 similarly applicable.

  Cl. 14 of the 1964 Plan contained a provision relating to the duty of the person effecting the insurance to disclose any other insurances he might have. The provision corre­sponded to Section 44 of the Norwegian ICA 1930, which was deleted in the revision of the Norwegian ICA in 1989, inter alia on the grounds that the general provision relating to the duty of disclosure of the person effecting the insurance was sufficient to regulate the situation. The same will apply in marine insurance; furthermore, Cl. 2-5, sub-clause 2, relating to fraudulent over-insurance applies. The provision has, therefore, been deleted. If the insurer in a recourse settlement after the insurance event has occurred, should need to know about other insurances, the insurer can ask the person effecting the insurance.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-6. Liability of the insurer when the interest is also insured with another insurer

  If the interest is insured against the same perils with two or more insurers, each of them is liable to the assured in accordance with their respective contracts until the assured has received the full compensation to which the  assured is entitled. If one of the insurers has disclaimed liability...

• Clause 2-7. Recourse between the insurers where the interest is insured with two or more insurers

  This Clause corresponds to Cl. 12 of the 1964 Plan and relevant Nordic Insurance Contracts Acts (Nordic ICAs).

  Sub-clause 1 maintains the principle from Cl. 12, first sentence, of the 1964 Plan of a proportional apportionment among the insurers in the recourse settlement. The formulation is, however, somewhat simplified in relation to the 1964 Plan and corre­sponds to the wording of the Norwegian ICA Section 6-3, second sub-clause: “If two or more insurers are liable for the assured’s loss pursuant to the first sub-clause, the compensation shall be apportioned on a pro-rata basis according to the extent of the individual insurer’s liability for the loss, unless otherwise agreed between the insurers”. The 1964 Plan further­­more contained an assumption to the effect that “the total amount of the compen­sations for which the insurers, each according to his contract, would be liable in respect of the same loss” exceeded the compensation to which the assured was entitled. This condition is obvious and has therefore been deleted.

  Sub-clause 1 regulates the internal settlement among the insurers in the event of “double insurance” in the traditional sense, i.e. that the same interest is insured against the same peril with several insurers in such a manner that the total amount of the assured’s claims in connection with a certain loss exceeds the compensation to which the assured is entitled. When the assured has received what it is entitled to, the total amount of compensation shall be apportioned among the insurers according to the maximum amounts for which each of them was liable. This is an entirely internal settlement which does not concern the assured.

  Within the individual type of insurance double insurance is not likely to arise very frequently. It would be by sheer accident that, for example, a shipowner were to take out hull insurance in excess of the valuation, or cover voyage freight twice. Cl. 13 of the 1964 Plan contained a provision granting the assured the right to demand a proportional reduction of the sum insured in such situations. It has apparently not been applied in practice, and no corresponding rule is contained in relevant Nordic ICAs. This provision has therefore been deleted.

  If a salvage operation concerns different interests covered by different insurers, there will seemingly be double insurance as regards costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss. However, here the rules in Cl. 2-6 and Cl. 2-7 are not applied; according to Cl. 4-12, sub-clause 2, each of the insurers is only liable for that part of the costs which is attributed on a proportional basis to the interest which it insures; in other words, there is no question of any apportionment under the rules of double insurance.

  Cl.12, sub-clause 1, second sentence, of the 1964 Plan contained a rule to the effect that if an insurer was unable to “pay his share of the compensations, it is to be apportioned over the others according to the above rules, but each insurer is never obliged to pay more than the amount for which he was liable to the assured”. A similar provision in Section 42, first sub-clause, last sentence, of the Norwegian ICA 1930 was deleted, because it was regarded as unnecessary to encumber the statutory text with such detailed rules. The provision in the 1964 Plan is not referred to in the Commentary, and it has apparently not given rise to any problems in practice. It has therefore been deleted, also because the solution of a primarily pro-rata, in the alternative joint and several, liability follows from Section 2, second and third sub-clauses, of the Norwegian Act no. 1 of 17 February 1939 relating to instruments of debt (gjeldsbrevsloven) anyway, and must be considered to be the main rule relating to recourse liability in Norwegian property law.

  The provision in sub-clause 2 is attributable to the fact that joint and several liability is introduced for the insurers if all of them have reserved the right to subsidiary liability to the assured. In that event, a recourse settlement among the insurers will be necessary if one or more of them have initially been charged a higher amount than what their proportionate obligation indicates.

  Sub-clause 3 regulates double insurance where a loss is partly covered by the primary cover of an insurance and partly by another insurance’s cover of costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss. A corresponding regulation is contained in the hull insurance conditions, cf. Cefor 1.4 and PIC Clause 5.10. In such cases, the loss should be covered under the insurance which is liable for costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss. It would therefore not be natural to apply the recourse rules contained in Cl. 2-7, sub-clause 1, to this situation, cf. sub-clause 3, first sentence, which establishes that the insurer who covers costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss shall, to the extent of its liability, bear the full amount of compensation payments in the recourse settlement. If the insurer who covers costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss has explicitly made its liability subsidiary in relation to other insurers, this must be respected in keeping with the solution in Cl. 2-6, sub-clause 2. If both the primary insurer and the insurer of costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss have reserved the right to full recourse against the other insurer, the situation will be as if both have declared subsidiary liability. The final loss must then be placed with the insurer who is liable for the costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss - so that the primary insurer will have full recourse against the insurer of costs of measures to avert or minimise the loss if it has initially had to compensate the assured’s loss, cf. sub-clause 3, second sentence.

  View Clause Go to Plan page

  Clause 2-7. Recourse between the insurers where the interest is insured with two or more insurers

  If the interest is insured against the same perils with two or more insurers, the total amount of compensation shall, in the recourse settlement, be apportioned on the basis of the amounts for which each insurer was liable. If all of the insurers have disclaimed liability where the interest is al...