P&I and H&M Insurance for Smart Yachts, Evaluation of the Concept of “Causa Proxima” and the Liability of the Insurer

In the case of Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Sussex, the specific event in question was about the determination of the reason for the sinking of a yacht named DUET and whether the insurer had any liability for the sinking of the yacht. According to the claim of the insurer, Pacific Indemnity Company, the damage was not caused by a peril of the sea but by yacht’s unseaworthiness, and since the unseaworthiness was not covered by the insurance company, there was no liability for compensation for damages resulting from the sinking. The unseaworthiness mentioned by the insurer was a hole 12-14 inches (approximately up to 35.56 cm) above the yacht. At the same time, the defendant insurance company argued that even if the damage was caused by a peril of the sea, the plaintiff did not act as reasonable owners and therefore the insurance compensation should be limited to $850. On the contrary, the plaintiffs Sussex and Harmer claimed that the main cause of the sinking of the yacht was a peril of the sea and that the damage arising therefrom was covered by the insurance policy, that the defendant’s claim that they did not act as

At the end of the case, the court ruled that the damages were caused by peril of…

Another application of the Causa Proxima Rule in yachts is seen in Wenhold v. Royal Insurance

The plaintiff and the defendant agreed that the policy price and the value of the…