Scroll to the top

Section 5: Supplementary cover for nets and seines in the sea

  • General

    The supplementary cover under this Section cannot be effected separately, but must be effected in combination with the standard cover under Section 4.

  • Clause 17-29. Objects insured

    The distinction between objects which are on board the vessel and objects which are in the sea is commented on in further detail in the Commentary on Cl. 17-19 (b). The insurance does not cover any seines other than ring-nets in the water.

    The objects that are insured under the supplementary cover in Section 5 are to a large extent the same as the objects that are insured under the normal cover in Section 4, cf. Cl. 17-19 (b). Normally a sum insured will be agreed for each cover. If a sum insured has been agreed for the objects concerned under the normal cover, but not under the supplementary cover, it must, however, be assumed that the sum insured shall be the same under both covers. 

    View ClauseGo to Plan page

    Clause 17-29. Objects insured

    The insurance covers drift nets and ring nets with necessary accessories which are in the sea and which belong to the assured. The insurance does not, however, cover sensors, etc.

  • Clause 17-30. Excluded perils/Ref. Clause 2-8

    The most common damage is that seines get caught on the sea bed. The insurers are prepared to cover such damage subject to the limitations that follow from sub-clauses (a) to (e). Such cover could actually be achieved by extending the Clause defining liability, while otherwise retaining the principle of a positive specification of the perils covered. Because it is difficult to prove that "currents" and "heavy catch" are causes of damage, the Committee found it more expedient to change to a negative specification of the perils covered, even if such a transition may cause some uncertainty as regards the actual content of the cover. To safeguard the position of the insurer in connection with such a revision of the description of the perils covered, the burden of proof in respect of exclusions has been reversed in relation to Cl. 2-12, cf. below.

    Sub-clause (a) entails that the insurer is only liable for loss resulting from the net or seine getting caught in an unknown wreck or unknown wreckage. Damage resulting from ordinary contact with the sea bed, for instance if the net or seine gets caught on natural obstacles that are part of the general character of the sea bed, is not covered.

    The wreck is "known" when it is indicated on a chart, in e.g. the Notices to Mariners published by the Norwegian Maritime Directorate or in corresponding foreign publications. The term "unknown" is meant to be an objective criterion. The assured cannot argue that he was not aware of wreckage that has been made known to the public as stated above. On the other hand, the wreckage must be regarded as known if the assured had knowledge of it, even if it might not have been made known to the public.

    Sub-clause (d) provides that the insurer is not liable for loss resulting from nets and seines being in contact with ice. Sub-clause (e) is based on the same principle as Cl. 10-3 of the Plan, and establishes that the insurer does not cover losses resulting from normal use of the object insured. This will be the case, for example, where large seines and nets are lost due to the weight of the fish and sea currents.

    It follows from the principle in Cl. 2-12, sub-clauses 1 and 2, of the Plan that the insurer, under an all-risks insurance, has the burden of proving that the damage was caused by an excluded peril. Under Cl. 17-30, sub-clause 2, this rule of the burden of proof for exclusions has been reversed, thus placing the burden of proof on the assured. This has been necessary in order to give the assured the better cover inherent in a negative specification of the perils covered.

    The earlier exclusions in sub-clause 2 (b) of the provision regarding gear used for shore-locking and the like, sub-clause (c) regarding infringements of statutes or official regulations, and sub-clause (d) regarding measures to avert or minimise loss have been deleted. The exclusion for shore-locking was superfluous because gear is no longer used in that way, while infringements of statutes or regulations are governed by safety regulations. The insurers are willing to cover measures to avert or minimise loss.

    View ClauseGo to Plan page

    Clause 17-30. Excluded perils/Ref. Clause 2-8

    In addition to Cl. 2-8 the following shall apply: The insurer does not cover loss resulting from: the object insured getting caught on the seabed, unless this is due to an unknown wreck or wreckage, defects in the object insured, the vessel, its accessories or equipment not being in a proper...

  • Clause 17-31. Deductible

    The deductible shall be agreed on an individual basis and be stated in the insurance contract. The deductible shall also apply in the event of total loss.

    View ClauseGo to Plan page

    Clause 17-31. Deductible

    For any one casualty the amount stated in the insurance contract shall be deducted.

  • Clause 17-32. Duties of the assured in the event of casualty/Ref. Clause 3-29

    The purpose of the provision is to make it possible to identify lost objects if they are recovered. This provision comes in addition to the ordinary duty to notify the insurer in Cl. 3-29. In the event of a failure to comply with this duty, Cl. 3-31 shall apply.

    The text was slightly amended in the 2013 Plan by changing the wording “Norwegian Fisheries Inspectorate” to “Fisheries Inspectorate”.

    View ClauseGo to Plan page

    Clause 17-32. Duties of the assured in the event of a casualty/Ref. Clause 3-29

    In addition to Cl. 3-29 the following shall apply: The assured shall send notification of the casualty to the fisheries inspectorate giving particulars of when and where the loss took place, identifying marks and age as well as other information which may be of significance for the purpose of...