Sub-clause 1 was amended in the 2013 Plan.
Difficult questions may arise where the assured and his liability insurer disagree as to how to handle a dispute with a third party, for instance, whether to accept an offer of an out-of-court settlement, or whether to accept or appeal against a court decision. Relevant questions are: who is authorized to make the decisions, the insurer’s liability if the assured refuses to comply with his decision, and liability for litigation costs in connection with the various outcomes the dispute may have. The situation is made even more complex by the fact that there will often be two liability insurers behind the assured - the hull and the P&I insurer, respectively - and the fact that their interest in the outcome of the assured’s dispute with a third party may differ. The following example shows how the conflict may arise: insured vessel A has collided with vessel B, which is lost with a valuable cargo and many passengers. The cargo on board vessel A is also damaged. Disputes arising from the collision are to be tried under American law. By a judgment of a court of first instance, the fault has been attributed entirely to A, but the owner has been granted the right to limit his liability. The owner and the hull insurer want to appeal against the judgment with a view to obtaining an apportionment of fault, under which the owner would obtain partial cover of his loss of time, and the hull insurer would obtain a reduction of the collision liability and partial cover of the repair costs. The P&I insurer objects to an appeal for two reasons: partly because an apportionment of fault would impose an indirect liability on him for half of the damage to A’s own cargo and partly because he fears that the superior courts would not only place the entire fault with vessel A, but would also find this to be a case of fault, which would deprive the owner of the right to limit liability. Unlimited liability for damages would first and foremost affect the P&I insurer, given that the hull insurer’s liability for collision damages is limited to the sum insured, cf. Cl. 13-3.
Normally the parties will reach an agreement. In case of disagreement, the parties will as a rule consult internal expertise. However, if one of the parties brings the matter to a head, there must be rules to fall back on.
Under sub-clause 1, conflicts between the assured and the insurer about the filing of suits or appeals shall be decided with binding effect by an umpire designated by the Association of Nordic Average Adjusters. In earlier versions the appointment of the umpire was to be made jointly by the Norwegian average adjusters, but this is changed due to the Plan now being Nordic.
Sub-clause 2 lays down certain principles the umpire shall adhere to in his decision. The basic rule is that he must choose the solution which, in his opinion, will in all probability result in the least overall loss for the assured and his insurers, cf. first sentence. A crucial point in this connection will be the risk of the assured being denied the right to limit his liability by the court of appeal. However, sub-clause 2, second sentence, also indicates a factor which the umpire shall not take into account. As evidenced by the example given above, the P&I insurer will sometimes prefer the fault for a collision to be placed solely with the assured, in view of the fact that he will thus avoid the so-called “indirect cargo liability”. The assured will have a similar interest in relation to the hull insurer if he has not taken out P&I insurance. However, attempting to have the degree of fault of the insured vessel reduced through a hearing of the case by a higher court must at all events be a legitimate interest worth protecting. A rule has accordingly been incorporated to the effect that the umpire shall not take into account the advantage which the assured or his P&I insurer may have through an acceptance of, or an attempt to be allocated, a higher degree of fault than necessary in a collision case.
The umpire shall decide the conflict of interest between the assured and his insurers with final effect, but there are no enforcement measures vis-à-vis the assured if he does not comply with the umpire’s directions. The assured’s failure to do so will affect both the liability of an insurer in whose favour the umpire’s decision was made, and the payment of the litigation costs, cf. sub-clause 3. If the insurer wants to accept an offer of an out-of-court settlement or a court decision and is supported on this point by the umpire, he shall cover the liability which would have been imposed on the assured by the out-of-court settlement or a court decision, cf. first sentence. If the insurer wishes to lodge an appeal and is supported by the umpire, he will cover the liability he anticipated would be imposed on the assured by a superior court and which he has accordingly offered to cover. It is therefore important that, during the umpire’s consideration of the matter, the insurer makes it clear to him exactly what he wants to achieve by lodging an appeal. As mentioned in Cl. 4-21, the insurer does not in such situations have the right to pay out the sum insured for the liability and refuse any further involvement in the case.
Should it turn out that the umpire was wrong, and the assured’s choice was justified so that the insurer in actual fact incurs less extensive liability than that which he had declared himself prepared to accept, it is reasonable that he shall also pay his proportionate share of the litigation costs. This is explicitly stated in the second sentence.
Cefor - The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers