The Commentary was amended in 2016.
Sub-clause 1 establishes the insurer’s right to be subrogated to the assured’s claims against third parties. When the assured has a claim for damages against a third party on account of a loss, either wholly or in part, e.g., as a general average contribution or as compensation for collision damage, the insurer will automatically be subrogated to the assured’s claim against the third party when he pays compensation under the insurance contract.
The insurer is subrogated to “the rights of the assured against the third party concerned”. This entails that he takes over the claim for damages regardless of the basis on which it is founded. However, this does not apply where the assured has a claim by virtue of another insurance contract. Here the special rules relating to double insurance contained in Cl. 2-6 and Cl. 2-7 shall apply. If one of the insurers is liable by virtue of the rules relating to costs of measures to avert or minimise loss, however, the entire loss shall be covered by that insurer, cf. Cl. 2-7, sub-clause 3.
The insurer is subrogated to the claim as it is in the assured’s hands. If there is a maritime lien or some other security connected with the claim, the insurer may exercise this right, cf. ND 1939.269 NH Congo.
The insurer only takes over claims for damages that are connected with the interest insured and refer to the very losses that the insurer has covered. If the assured has suffered any other loss that is not covered under the insurance (e.g., loss of time in connection with a collision), he retains the claim for damages or the claim for contribution in respect of these items.
For H&M insurance, situations have arisen where e.g. an engine maker or a shipyard have accepted liability (wholly or partly) for damage done to the ship, a guarantee claim or the like. In such situations it may not be readily apparent whether there is a recovery to be dealt with under this Clause, or whether there is e.g. a “discount” or the like to be deducted from the claim.
In this respect, it should be noted that there can not be any recovery to be dealt with under Cl. 5-13 unless there is a liability for insurers to pay compensation in the first place. As an example, in case an engine maker accepts liability for damage to an engine and repairs the engine free of charge, there is no liability on H&M insurers to pay compensation under Cl. 12-1 for the work by engine makers, as nothing is payable to them (see particularly Cl. 12-1, sub-clause 2). The value of repairs by engine maker therefore represents unbilled repairs, which would be equivalent to a discount to be deducted from the claim, and Cl. 5-13 is not applicable. The assured may however have to pay associated costs such as shipyard expenses for repair support, classification of repairs and other costs, which would be claimable under the H&M insurance contract pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Plan. In case engine makers accept liability and reimburse such costs, the reimbursement will represent a recovery to be dealt with under Cl. 5-13. Therefore, as a general guideline the value of unbilled and/or unpaid repairs do not give rise to application of Cl. 5-13, whilst reimbursement of recoverable repair costs previously paid (incl. costs which are obviously payable although not yet paid) by the assured constitutes a recovery to be dealt with under Cl. 5-13.
The rule in sub-clause 1, second sentence, is referred to in connection with Cl. 4-14.
Sub-clause 2 regulates the situation where the insurer is only partly liable for the loss. In marine insurance the situation will often be that the insurance conditions provide that the assured shall bear part of the loss in the form of deductions or deductibles. In that event, the assured shall retain a proportion of the claim for damages against the third party concerned equivalent to the loss he has sustained himself, cf. first sentence.
A simple example:
A shipowner has agreed the deductible for PA damage per Cl. 12-18 to be USD 100,000. His ship (ship A) is damaged in a collision. Cost of repairs is USD 400,000, and insurers therefore pay compensation for damage to ship A in the amount of USD 300,000 net of deductible. Thereafter the opponent vessel (ship B) is held liable and are eventually found 60% to blame. Recovery is consequently USD 240,000. Pursuant to Cl. 5-13, sub-clause 2, the recovery shall be apportioned as follows:
Insurers recover 300,000/400,000ths of USD 240,000 = USD 180,000
And owners of ship A recover 100,000/400,000ths of USD 240,000 = USD 60,000
This is relatively straightforward when the deductible is agreed with a fixed amount for PA damage, pursuant to the standard Cl. 12-18 solution. And even if the insured vessel has incurred liability during the same event (e.g. 40% in the above example), the standard Plan solution is that the parties should agree a separate deductible to be applied for any collision liability, see Cl. 13-4.
In practice it is sometimes agreed in the policy that in case there are PA damage to the ship as well as liability under the Plan’s Chapter 13 during the same event (e.g. in a both to blame collision), the maximum total amount to be deducted shall be equivalent to the higher of the 2 deductibles agreed (Cl. 12-18 and Cl. 13-4). However, for recovery purposes it is necessary to identify the amount of deductible attaching to each of the two categories of claim (i.e. PA damage to own ship and liability to other ship). The general principle for a H&M claim is that a deductible is proportioned over all claim items / disbursements to which the deductible is applicable. (This will also follow from interest calculation guidelines found in the Commentary to Cl. 5-4.) As a starting point, the same principle must apply in case a deductible attaches to PA damage as well as to liability. If we expand on the example above we can assume that in the policy for ship A the agreed PA deductible (Cl. 12-18) is USD 100,000, and the liability deductible (Cl. 13-4) is USD 50,000, With damage to the ship and liability during the same event, the maximum total deductible for damage and liability should be equivalent to the higher of the two (i.e. USD 100,000). The following examples may serve as a guideline:
- Ship A suffers PA damage USD 400,000 (recoverable under Chapter 12) and ship B suffers damage in the amount of USD 250,000. Ship A was 40% to blame and had to pay liability 40% of B’s loss = USD 100,000. Total claim subject to deductible for ship A would then be (ship damage 400,000 + liability 100,000) USD 500,000 and the deductible shall then be apportioned with 400,000/500,000ths of deductible 100,000 = USD 80,000 attaching to PA damage, and 100,000/500,000ths of deductible 100,000 = USD 20,000 attaching to liability. In other words, the deductible is apportioned pro rata in accordance with general principles. The consequence for apportionment of recovery from opponent vessel would be that the assured has carried USD 80,000 of vessels own damage, and therefore receives 80,000/400,000ths of recovery from ship B. If total recovery is (60% of 400,000) USD 240,000, then the assured receives (60% of 80,000) USD 48,000, and the balance (60% of 320,000) USD 192,000 is credited the insurer.
- Ship A suffers PA damage USD 400,000 (as the example above), but now ship B suffers damage in the amount of USD 1.5 million, whereof vessel A is liable for 40% or USD 600,000. Total claim subject to deductible for ship A would then be (ship damage 400,000 + liability 600,000) USD 1,000,000 and if deductible is proportioned, the share attaching to liability would be USD 60,000. However, as the deductible applicable for liability is stated to be USD 50,000 in the policy, this is the maximum amount applicable to the liability claim, and therefore USD 50,000 would be applicable to liability, and the balance of the total deductible USD 50,000 would be applicable to damage to own ship. The consequence for apportionment of recovery from opponent vessel would be that the assured has carried USD 50,000 of vessels own damage, and therefore receives 50,000/400,000ths of recovery from ship B. If total recovery is (60% of 400,000) USD 240,000, then the assured receives (60% of 50,000) USD 30,000, and the balance (60% of 350,000) USD 210,000 is credited the insurer.
It should also be noted that the above principles for apportionment of deductible is applicable irrespective of whether the PA claim or liability claim is settled first. For collision cases, usually the PA claim is adjusted and settled before the collision claim, and then in practice the full deductible will be deducted on the PA adjustment. Still, the deductible must be reapportioned in the collision adjustment, primarily in order to obtain a correct basis for apportionment of recovery.
The claim for damages shall also be divided when the value of the interest affected by the loss is estimated to be a higher amount in the relationship between the assured and the third party than in the relationship between the assured and the insurer, and the third party is only liable for a portion of the loss, or is unable to cover the full value of the interest, cf. second sentence. Hence, the claim for damages shall be divided proportionately if the ship becomes a total loss as the result of a collision and its value is estimated to be higher than the hull valuation, whilst the third party, due to the rules relating to limitation of liability, pays a smaller amount in damages than what the insurer has paid to the assured. Conversely, if the value of the ship in a collision case is estimated to be an amount equivalent to or lower than the hull valuation, the insurer shall keep the entire claim for damages, unless the assured has also suffered other losses.
It is the assured’s claim against third parties which may be subjected to a proportionate division, and not the amount of damages which may be paid. The insurer shall invoke his portion of the claim in his own name. If the assured does not wish to pursue his part of the claim, he is free to drop it. If both the insurer and the assured invoke their claims, it would be natural to try these claims in the same action; such action shall then be conducted in the names of both parties.
Where it is the assured’s claim that is divided, it is superfluous to issue rules relating to the apportionment of the costs of recovery. Each of the parties shall bear the costs that have been necessary in order to recover his own claim.
If the claims brought by the assured and the insurer against the third party concerned are not met in full, for example because the third party only has limited liability or is insolvent, the assured competes on a par with the insurer. The Plan has not adopted the rule that is common in types of insurance of a more social nature to the effect that the assured’s claim for damages prevails over that of the insurer in the event of the relevant third party’s bankruptcy.
If the value of the interest insured is set at a higher amount in the relationship between the assured and the third party than in the relationship between the assured and the insurer, and the third party is furthermore liable for the full loss and is able to pay the entire amount, the insurer’s portion of the claim will be larger than the compensation he has paid to the assured. It would not be reasonable for the insurer to make a profit from his right of subrogation in this way, and sub-clause 3 therefore establishes that such profit shall be transferred back to the assured. There will obviously be no question of any profit until the insurer has been reimbursed the expenses covered in connection with the recovery of the claim and the interest accrued on the compensation he has paid to the assured. The loss of interest for the period following the claims settlement with the assured must also be taken into account.
If the third party’s liability is stipulated in another currency than the one set out in the insurance contract, the insurer shall bear the risk of any exchange loss during the period between the event involving liability and the enforcement of the recourse claim. On the other hand, the insurer shall also have the advantage of any exchange gain. Hence, the rule in sub-clause 3 shall not apply here.
A special question arises where several insurers are entitled to a portion of the claim for damages. The problem poses no difficulties if the various insured interests are assessed separately in the claims settlement. However, if the ship is a total loss as a result of a collision, the compensation will be fixed at one specific amount, representing the value of the ship, including the value of a lost charterparty, if relevant. In practice, it has been disputed how the compensation received shall be apportioned among the hull insurer, the hull-interest insurer and the freight-interest insurer. One solution is to make a proportional apportionment also among the total-loss insurers. In the alternative, the traditional layer distribution of the total-loss insurances may be adopted, and the hull insurer must be given first priority to compensation to the extent of his claim. The hull-interest insurer will then be given second priority, whilst the freight-interest insurer will only get his share if there is still anything left of the compensation. The reason for this solution is that it would not be reasonable if, in the event of a total loss, the hull insurer’s claim for damages were to be affected by the extent of the freight-interest insurance that the shipowner has taken out.
During the revision, there was general consensus that in the normal situation where the hull value is equal to or higher than the market value, the hull insurer should be given priority. In the event of a total loss with a subsequent refund from the party causing a loss of NOK 3 million and a hull valuation of NOK 18 million, the hull insurer should receive the entire compensation if the market value is lower than NOK 18 million. In these cases, the hull interest and the freight-interest insurers will not get anything. If, however, the hull valuation is lower than the market value, an apportionment must be made so that each insurer receives a portion of the compensation that is proportionate to his share of the market value. The excess amount accrues to the assured. If the market value in the example above is NOK 25 million and the hull interest is insured at NOK 4.5 million, the hull insurer will thus receive 18/25 of NOK 3 million, the hull-interest insurer 4.5/25 of NOK 3 million, and the owner 2.5/25 of NOK 3 million.
The insurer’s right of subrogation to claims by the assured for damages against third parties is also regulated in Cl. 5-22. The relationship between these provisions appears from the Commentary on that provision.
Cefor - The Nordic Association of Marine Insurers