{"id":1482,"date":"2012-04-22T20:23:19","date_gmt":"2012-04-22T18:23:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ourblog.greenwoods.org\/?p=1482"},"modified":"2012-04-22T20:23:19","modified_gmt":"2012-04-22T18:23:19","slug":"cargo-underwriting","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/greenwoods.org\/cargo-underwriting\/","title":{"rendered":"Cargo Underwriting"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>It is probably a fair statement to say that subrogation involves the cargo market more actively than other branches of marine insurance, and there is accordingly a need for the claims practitioner engaged in that field to understand the relationship between the bailee, the assured and his Underwriters. In collision cases, of course, the matter of pressing the claim against another vessel, which may be wholly or partly to blame, will usually be well regulated by the solicitors initially employed to protect the interests of all concerned. In general average too, there is no particular difficulty in obtaining the credit balance due, since Underwriters have merely to ensure that the Average Adjusters concerned are aware of any settlement they have made for sacrifice or deposit, and they can remain secure in the knowledge that the cash position will be ultimately resolved. Many claims on cargo policies are the result of including the so-called “extraneous” risks, such as pilferage or negligent handling, but at one time the exceptions clauses in the carriers’ contracts of carriage were so comprehensive that it was considered virtually impossible to hold them responsible. The position when the contract of affreightment is evidenced by a Bill of Lading is now controlled by the incorporation of the Hague or Hague-Visby Rules which have been adopted by most countries, but prior to that the piece of verse which follows probably gave a good reflection of the attitude of carriers.<\/p>\n

SO TRY YOUR UNDERWRITER<\/p>\n