This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Marine insurance covers the loss or damage of ships, cargo, terminals, and any transport by which the property is transferred, acquired, or held between the points of origin and the final destination. Cargo insurance is the sub-branch of marine insurance, though Marine insurance also includes Onshore and Offshore exposed property, (container terminals, ports, oil platforms, pipelines), Hull, Marine Casualty, and Marine Liability. When goods are transported by mail or courier, shipping insurance is used instead.


Main article: History of insurance

See also: Banker (ancient) § Mesopotamia

In December 1901 and January 1902, at the direction of archaeologist Jacques de Morgan, Father Jean-Vincent Scheil, OP found a 2.25 meter (or 88.5 inch) tall basalt or diorite stele in three pieces inscribed with 4,130 lines of cuneiform law dictated by Hammurabi (c. 1792–1750 BC) of the First Babylonian Empire in the city of Shush, Iran.[1][2][3] Code of Hammurabi Law 100 stipulated repayment by a debtor of a loan to a creditor on a schedule with a maturity date specified in written contractual terms. Laws 101 and 102 stipulated that a shipping agent, factor, or ship charterer was only required to repay the principal of a loan to their creditor in the event of a net income loss or a total loss due to an Act of God. Law 103 stipulated that an agent, factor, or charterer was by force majeure relieved of their liability for an entire loan in the event that the agent, factor, or charterer was the victim of theft during the term of their charterparty upon provision of an affidavit of the theft to their creditor.[4][5][6]

Code of Hammurabi Law 104 stipulated that a carrier (agents, factors, or charterers) issue a waybill and invoice for a contract of carriage to a consignee outlining contractual terms for sales, commissions, and laytime and receive a bill of parcel and lien authorizing consignment from the consignee. Law 105 stipulated that claims for losses filed by agents, factors, and charterers without receipts were without standing.[4][5][6] Law 126 stipulated that filing a false claim of a loss was punishable by law.[7][8][6] Law 235 stipulated that a shipbuilder was liable within one year of construction for the replacement of an unseaworthy vessel to the ship-owner that was lost during the term of a charterparty. Laws 236 and 237 stipulated that a sea captain, ship-manager, or charterer was liable for the replacement of a lost vessel and cargo to the shipowner and consignees respectively that was negligently operated during the term of a charterparty. Law 238 stipulated that a captain, manager, or charterer that saved a ship from total loss was only required to pay one-half the value of the ship to the shipowner. Law 240 stipulated that the owner of a cargo ship that destroyed a passenger ship in a collision was liable for replacement of the passenger ship and cargo it held upon provision of an affidavit of the collision by the owner of the passenger ship.[9][10][6]

In the Digesta seu Pandectae (533), the second volume of the codification of laws ordered by Justinian I (527–565) of the Eastern Roman Empire, a legal opinion written by the Roman jurist Paulus at the beginning of the Crisis of the Third Century in 235 AD was included about the Lex Rhodia ("Rhodian law") that articulates the general average principle of marine insurance established on the island of Rhodes in approximately 1000 to 800 BC as a member of the Doric Hexapolis, plausibly by the Phoenicians during the proposed Dorian invasion and emergence of the purported Sea Peoples during the Greek Dark Ages (c. 1100–c. 750) that led to the proliferation of the Doric Greek dialect.[11][12][13] The law of general average constitutes the fundamental principle that underlies all insurance.[12]

It is the oldest risk hedging instruments to mitigate risk in medieval times were sea/marine (Mutuum) loans, commenda contract, and bill of exchanges.[citation needed] Separate marine insurance contracts were developed near Genoa, in Camogli[14] in 1853 and other Italian cities in the fourteenth century and spread to northern Europe. Premiums varied with intuitive estimates of the variable risk from seasons and pirates.[15] Modern marine insurance law originated in the Lex mercatoria (law merchant). In 1601, a specialized chamber of assurance separate from the other Courts was established in England. By the end of the seventeenth century, London's growing importance as a centre for trade was increasing demand for marine insurance. In the late 1680s, Edward Lloyd opened a coffee house on Tower Street in London. It soon became a popular haunt for ship owners, merchants, and ships' captains, and thereby a reliable source of the latest shipping news.[16]

Lloyd's Coffee House was the first marine insurance market. It became the meeting place for parties in the shipping industry wishing to insure cargoes and ships, and those willing to underwrite such ventures. These informal beginnings led to the establishment of the insurance market Lloyd's of London and several related shipping and insurance businesses. The participating members of the insurance arrangement eventually formed a committee and moved to the Royal Exchange on Cornhill as the Society of Lloyd's. The establishment of insurance companies, a developing infrastructure of specialists (such as shipbrokers, admiralty lawyers, bankers, surveyors, loss adjusters, general average adjusters, et al.), and the growth of the British Empire gave English law a prominence in this area which it largely maintains and forms the basis of almost all modern practice. Lord Mansfield, Lord Chief Justice in the mid-eighteenth century, began the merging of law merchant and common law principles. The growth of the London insurance market led to the standardization of policies and judicial precedent further developed marine insurance law. In 1906 the Marine Insurance Act codified the previous common law; it is both an extremely thorough and concise piece of work. Although the title of the Act refers to marine insurance, the general principles have been applied to all non-life insurance. In the 19th century, Lloyd's and the Institute of London Underwriters (a grouping of London company insurers) developed between them standardized clauses for the use of marine insurance, and these have been maintained since. These are known as the Institute Clauses because the Institute covered the cost of their publication. Out of marine insurance, grew non-marine insurance and reinsurance. Marine insurance traditionally formed the majority of business underwritten at Lloyd's. Nowadays, Marine insurance is often grouped with Aviation and Transit (cargo) risks, and in this form is known by the acronym 'MAT'.

It is common for marine insurance agencies to compete with the offerings provided by local insurers. These specialist agencies often fill market gaps by providing cover for hard-to-place or obscure marine insurance risks that would otherwise be difficult or impossible to find insurance cover for. These agencies can become quite large and eventually become market makers. They operate best when their day-to-day management is independent of the insurers who provide them with the capital to underwrite risks on their behalf.


The Marine Insurance Act includes, as a schedule, a standard policy (known as the "SG form"), which parties were at liberty to use if they wished. Because each term in the policy had been tested through at least two centuries of judicial precedent, the policy was extremely thorough. However, it was also expressed in rather archaic terms. In 1991, the London market produced a new standard policy wording known as the MAR 91 form using the Institute Clauses. The MAR form is simply a general statement of insurance; the Institute Clauses are used to set out the detail of the insurance cover. In practice, the policy document usually consists of the MAR form used as a cover, with the Clauses stapled to the inside. Typically, each clause will be stamped, with the stamp overlapping both onto the inside cover and to other clauses; this practice is used to avoid the substitution or removal of clauses. Because marine insurance is typically underwritten on a subscription basis, the MAR form begins: We, the Underwriters, agree to bind ourselves each for his own part and not one for another [...]. In legal terms, liability under the policy is several and not joint, i.e., the underwriters are all liable together, but only for their share or proportion of the risk. If one underwriter should default, the remainder are not liable to pick his share of the claim. Typically, marine insurance is split between the vessels and the cargo. Insurance of the vessels is generally known as "Hull and Machinery" (H&M). A more restricted form of cover is "Total Loss Only" (TLO), generally used as a reinsurance, which only covers the total loss of the vessel and not any partial loss. Cover may be on either a "voyage" or "time" basis. The "voyage" basis covers transit between the ports set out in the policy; the "time" basis covers a period, typically one year, and is more common.

Protection and indemnity

Main article: Protection and indemnity insurance

A marine policy typically covered only three-quarter of the insured's liabilities towards third parties (Institute Time Clauses Hulls 1.10.83). The typical liabilities arise in respect of collision with another ship, known as "running down" (collision with a fixed object is a "allision"), and wreck removal (a wreck may serve to block a harbour, for example). In the 19th century, shipowners banded together in mutual underwriting clubs known as Protection and Indemnity Clubs (P&I), to insure the remaining one-quarter liability amongst themselves. These Clubs are still in existence today and have become the model for other specialized and noncommercial marine and non-marine mutuals, for example in relation to oil pollution and nuclear risks. Clubs work on the basis of agreeing to accept a shipowner as a member and levying an initial "call" (premium). With the fund accumulated, reinsurance will be purchased; however, if the loss experience is unfavourable one or more "supplementary calls" may be made. Clubs also typically try to build up reserves, but this puts them at odds with their mutual status. Because liability regimes vary throughout the world, insurers are usually careful to limit or exclude American Jones Act liability.

Actual total loss and constructive total loss

Main article: Total loss

These two terms are used to differentiate the degree of proof that a vessel or cargo has been lost. An actual total loss occurs when the property has been destroyed, or so damaged as to cease to be a thing of the kind insured. A constructive total loss is a situation in which the cost of repairs plus the cost of salvage equal or exceed the value.[17][18] The use of these terms is contingent on there being property remaining to assess damages, which is not always possible in losses to ships at sea or in total theft situations. In this respect, marine insurance differs from non-marine insurance, with which the insured is required to prove his loss. Traditionally, in law, marine insurance was seen as an insurance of "the adventure", with insurers having a stake and an interest in the vessel and/or the cargo rather than simply an interest in the financial consequences of the subject-matter's survival.

The term "constructive total loss" was also used by the United States Navy during World War II to describe naval vessels that were damaged to such an extent that they were beyond economical repair. This was most often applied to destroyer-type ships in 1945, the last year of the war, many which were damaged by kamikazes. By this time enough ships were available for the war that some could be disposed of if severely damaged.[19]

General averages

Average in marine insurance terms is "an equitable apportionment among all the interested parties of such an expense or loss".

General average stands apart for marine insurance. In order for general average to be properly declared, 1) there must be an event which is beyond the shipowner's control, which imperils the entire adventure; 2) there must be a voluntary sacrifice, 3) there must be something saved. The voluntary sacrifice might be the jettison of certain cargo, the use of tugs, or salvors, or damage to the ship, be it, voluntary grounding, knowingly working the engines that will result in damages. General average requires all parties concerned in the maritime venture (hull/cargo/freight/bunkers) to contribute to make good the voluntary sacrifice. They share the expense in proportion to the 'value at risk" in the adventure. Particular average is the term applied to partial loss be it hull or cargo.

Average – is the situation in which the insured has under-insured, i.e., insured an item for less than it is worth. Average will apply to reduce the claim amount payable. An average adjuster is a marine claims specialist responsible for adjusting and providing the general average statement. An Average Adjuster in North America is a 'member of the association of Average Adjusters' To insure the fairness of the adjustment a General Average adjuster is appointed by the shipowner and paid by the insurer.

Excess, deductible, retention, co-insurance, and franchise

An excess is the amount payable by the insured and is usually expressed as the first amount falling due, up to a ceiling, in the event of a loss. An excess may or may not be applied. It may be expressed in either monetary or percentage terms. An excess is typically used to discourage moral hazard and to remove small claims, which are disproportionately expensive to handle. The term "excess" signifies the "deductible" or "retention".

A co-insurance, which typically governs non-proportional treaty reinsurance, is an excess expressed as a proportion of a claim in percentage terms and applied to the entirety of a claim. Co-insurance is a penalty imposed on the insured by the insurance carrier for under reporting/declaring/insuring the value of tangible property or business income. The penalty is based on a percentage stated within the policy and the amount under reported. As an example: a vessel actually valued at $1,000,000 has an 80% co-insurance clause but is insured for only $750,000. Since its insured value is less than 80% of its actual value, when it suffers a loss, the insurance payout will be subject to the under-reporting penalty, the insured will receive 750000/1000000th (75%) of the claim made less the deductible.

Tonners and chinamen

These are both obsolete forms of early reinsurance. Both are technically unlawful, as not having insurable interest, and so were unenforceable in law. Policies were typically marked P.P.I. (Policy is Proof of Interest). Their use continued into the 1970s before they were banned by Lloyd's, the main market, by which time they had become nothing more than crude bets. A "tonner" was simply a "policy" setting out the global gross tonnage loss for a year. If that loss was reached or exceeded, the policy paid out. A "chinaman" applied the same principle but in reverse: thus, if the limit was not reached, the policy paid out.

Specialist policies

Various specialist policies exist, including:

Warranties and conditions

A peculiarity of marine insurance, and insurance law generally, is the use of the terms condition and warranty. In English law, a condition typically describes a part of the contract that is fundamental to the performance of that contract, and, if breached, the non-breaching party is entitled not only to claim damages but to terminate the contract on the basis that it has been repudiated by the party in breach.

By contrast, a warranty is not fundamental to the performance of the contract and breach of a warranty, while giving rise to a claim for damages, does not entitle the non-breaching party to terminate the contract. The meaning of these terms is reversed in insurance law. Indeed, a warranty if not strictly complied with will automatically discharge the insurer from further liability under the contract of insurance. The assured has no defense to his breach, unless he can prove that the insurer, by his conduct, has waived his right to invoke the breach, possibility provided in section 34(3) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA). Furthermore, in the absence of express warranties the MIA will imply them, notably a warranty to provide a seaworthy vessel at the commencement of the voyage in a voyage policy (section 39(1)) and a warranty of legality of the insured voyage (section 41).[22]

Salvage and prizes

The term "salvage" refers to the practice of rendering aid to a vessel in distress. Apart from the consideration that the sea is traditionally "a place of safety", with sailors honour-bound to render assistance as required, it is obviously in underwriters' interests to encourage assistance to vessels in danger of being wrecked. A policy will usually include a "sue and labour" clause which will cover the reasonable costs incurred by a shipowner in his avoiding a greater loss.

At sea, a ship in distress will typically agree to "Lloyd's Open Form" with any potential salvor. The Lloyd's Open Form (LOF) is the standard contract, although other forms exist. The Lloyd's Open Form is headed "No cure — no pay"; the intention being that if the attempted salvage is unsuccessful, no award will be made. However, this principle has been weakened in recent years, and awards are now permitted in cases where, although the ship might have sunk, pollution has been avoided or mitigated.

In other circumstances the "salvor" may invoke the SCOPIC terms (most recent and commonly used rendition is SCOPIC 2000) in contrast to the LOF these terms mean that the salvor will be paid even if the salvage attempt is unsuccessful. The amount the salvor receives is limited to cover the costs of the salvage attempt and 25% above it. One of the main negative factors in invoking SCOPIC (on the salvor's behalf) is if the salvage attempt is successful the amount at which the salvor can claim under article 13 of LOF is discounted.

The Lloyd's Open Form, once agreed, allows salvage attempts to begin immediately. The extent of any award is determined later; although the standard wording refers to the Chairman of Lloyd's arbitrating any award, in practice the role of arbitrator is passed to specialist admiralty QCs. A ship captured in war is referred to as a prize, and the captors entitled to prize money. Again, this risk is covered by standard policies.

Marine Insurance Act, 1906

The examples and perspective in this section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this section, discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new section, as appropriate. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Main article: Marine Insurance Act 1906

The most important sections of this Act include::§4: a policy without insurable interest is void.:§17: imposes a duty on the insured of uberrimae fides (as opposed to caveat emptor), i.e., that questions must be answered honestly and the risk not misrepresented.:§18: the proposer of the insurer has a duty to disclose all material facts relevant to the acceptance and rating of the risk. Failure to do so is known as non-disclosure or concealment (there are minor differences in the two terms) and renders the insurance voidable by the insurer.:§33(3): If [a warranty] be not [exactly] complied with, then, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty, but without prejudice to any liability incurred by him before that date.:§34(2): where a warranty has been broken, it is no defence to the insured that the breach has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, prior to the loss.:§34(3): a breach of warranty may be waived (ignored) by the insurer.:§39(1): implied warranty that the vessel must be seaworthy at the start of her voyage and for the purpose of it (voyage policy only).:§39(5): no warranty that a vessel shall be seaworthy during the policy period (time policy). However, if the assured knowingly allows an unseaworthy vessel to set sail the insurer is not liable for losses caused by unseasworthiness.:§50: a policy may be assigned. Typically, a shipowner might assign the benefit of a policy to the ship-mortgagor.:§§60-63: deals with the issues of a constructive total loss. The insured can, by notice, claim for a constructive total loss with the insurer becoming entitled to the ship or cargo if it should later turn up. (By contrast an actual total loss describes the physical destruction of a vessel or cargo.):§79: deals with subrogation, i.e., the rights of the insurer to stand in the shoes of an indemnified insured and recover salvage for his own benefit. Schedule 1 of the Act contains a list of definitions; schedule 2 contains the model policy wording.

Australia has adopted an amended version of this Act, being the Marine Insurance Act 1909.

Claims basis and deductibles

Marine insurance is always written on an occurrence basis, covering claims that arise out of damage or injury that took place during the policy period, regardless when claims are made. Policy features often include extensions of coverage for items typical to a marine business such as liability for container damage and removal of debris.

A deductible is the first amount of a claim that the policy holders bears themselves. There can occasionally be a zero deductible but in most cases a deductible applies to claims made under a policy of marine insurance.

See also


In 2019 and 2020, KUZEY INSURANCE & REINSURANCE BROKERS committed one of the biggest frauds in maritime insurance in Turkey and in the region. This has been brought into the media as the investigation of the Financial Crimes Investigation Board in Istanbul, Turkey and final reviews of an appointed prosecutor in the Istanbul Anatolia Justice Department have been completed. 1.3 million EUR is the figure which shakes the sector and it is believed to be one the firsts of its type in Turkish maritime insurance history and also in the region. This fraudulent act was committed in later 2019 and early 2020 through a so-called Turkish based company “KUZEY SİGORTA VE REASÜRANS BROKERLİĞİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ “ and its listed proxy companies overseas. Some of the proxy companies that Kuzey has used with a slightly modified names in the different geographical regions are as follows; · KUZEY MARINE SIGORTA BROKERLIĞI · Kuzey Sigorta ve Reasürans Brokerliği · ATLAS P&I SERVICES · Kuzey Marine Brokers Ltd. (Entity Number: 98454 established in 2018 in the Marshall Islands) · Kuzey Marine Ltd (Company number: 11498031 established in 2018 in the United Kingdom) · KUZEY SİGORTA VE REASÜRANS BROKERLİĞİ ANONİM ŞİRKETİ

Connected Web addresses; · · · · · Single used address for all these companies: · Koşuyolu Mahallesi, Cenap Şehabettin Sok No:77, 34718 Kadıköy, İstanbul, Turkey Reviewing the publicly available data, shows that Emin Yaşacan is the president of the companies and the following people are acting as shareholders of the company in order to project their activity vast and credible. 1. Veli Bilgihan Yaşacan 2. Gulşah Yaşacan 3. Bülent Taha ŞEKERCİ. 4. Ömer Çınar 5. Aysun Ünlü 6. Buğra Bezer 7. Ece Devrim Arıkan

Kuzey Marine, and the chairman of the board, Mr Emin Yaşacan, claims to provide insurance and brokerage services in the Turkish maritime sector. On this basis, he has approached several ship owner and ship management companies and introduced himself as the local representative of THE INTERNATIONAL GROUP CLUBS ( and none-IG group and promised that he can offer a speedy membership with a reasonable cost for the ships. Additionally, he has always attempted to marketize his company and have been trying to sell these services; Marine hull insurance •Loss of hire insurance •P&I / Liability insurance •War risk insurance •Piracy / Kidnap & ransom insurance •Charterers liability insurance •Cargo insurance •Builders risk insurance •Special products for ship Owners. One of the companies that disclosed the fraud and forgery of Kuzey Marin is Istanbul Denizcilik and decided to open a lawsuit after having no outcome in discussions regarding return of the money with Emin Yaşacan. General Manager of the time, Mr İsmet Avcılar is the well-informed person in charge who also described that Kuzey has made numerous frauds in the sector not only through providing fake and fabricated documents of P&I but also, they have sold plenty of invalid and self-generated Hull and machinery and as well as extra war risk and kidnap and ransom policies to many companies. Mr Avcılar is supposed to be well connected with Kuzey Marine and appears to be the man behind the scene. There will be a separate post and further information about his support of Iranian and Russian companies to circumvent internationally imposed sanctions. Upon this development, it was learned that the officials of the Istanbul Denizcilik filed a criminal complaint with the Istanbul Anatolian Side Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. It was noted that the CEO, Emin Yaşacan, and other shareholders, Veli Bilgihan Yaşacan, Gulşah Yaşacan, Bülent Taha ŞEKERCİ, Ömer Çınarwas detained by KOM teams and after spending a day at detain house, they were interrogated by the prosecutor. While the rest were released, Emin and Bülent were arrested and sent to the Duty Judge in charge. The judge ordered a house arrest for a period of four month until the file is being concluded and further investigation is in progress. It is expected that Compensatory and Punitive courts will be carried out while two main suspects are also banned from traveling outside of the country. MONEY PAID BUT NO INSURANCE GIVEN! It is claimed that Kuzey Sigorta ve Reinsurans Brokerliği Anonim Şirketi, which is required to insure the P&I insurance of 8 dry cargo ships operated by the Istanbul Denizcilik did not insure the ships and embezzled nearly 1 million 300 thousand EUR paid by the company. Kuzey simply has issued several debit notes under a proxy company letterhead to the client and collected the premiums in less than a month (supposed to collect them in 4 installments) but not transferred the sum to main insurers; The American Club: Mutual P&I Association: P&I Clubs Within the framework of the investigation conducted by the Istanbul Anatolian Side Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, there are catalog crimes against Emin Yaşacan, including accusations of embezzlement, qualified fraud, dealing on a fake website, and counterfeiting. However, Kuzey CEO and Istanbul Denizcilik of GM (Mr Avciclar), denoted that Istanbul Denizcilik Company was under US sanctions and that the premiums payments cannot be made in dollars and so they had to be deposited in EURO. In doing so, an off-shore account connected with Kuzey Sigorta ve Reasürans Brokerliği Anonim Şirketi emerged and its account details were given over EURO. The bank that supported this fraud and helped Kuzey to collected this much of money in one-go is QNB Finansbank Bankacılık ve Finans Hizmetleri ( Later, the bank had transferred the sum to Mr Emin Yaşacan personal account in the same bank and allowed him to withdraw all in cash. It is unknown to everybody what an illegal activity Mr Emin Yaşacan has done with the money but it is clear that he has used an off-shore account in the QNB bank to do tax evasion and present inaccurate data to Istanbul Taxation Office ( While Istanbul Denizcilik noticed this fraud in mid-2020 and made tough communications with the Club and ended up paying a double premium for that year, but different statements of Yaşacan show that he is not telling the truth and project himself as a hero in doing fraud. While his company has issued debit notes and invalid insurance documents on behalf of leading insurance companies and solicited for money, he claims that this money is paid for consultancy and service, lobby and bribe. In other statements given at the court, he clearly states that Mr Ismet Avicalar, GM of Istanbul Denizcilik at that time, has requested him to commit this fraud. While Mr Avcialar used to be well connected with Kuzey and now we learned that he has been sacked from the company for this reason, it seems that the game is changing and Kuzey is looking for some others to be involved with this case. On the other hand, according to the information obtained; It was noted that the investigation carried out by the Istanbul Anatolian Side Public Prosecutor will turn into an indictment in the coming days when the trial begins. Ref: ; ;


  1. ^ Louvre (n.d.). "Law Code of Hammurabi, king of Babylon". Louvre, Department of Near Eastern Antiquities: Mesopotamia. Archived from the original on 5 December 2020. Retrieved 16 February 2021.
  2. ^ Scheil, Jean-Vincent (1902). Mémoires de la Délégation en Perse. Vol. 4: Textes élamites-sémitiques. Paris, France: Ernest Leroux. p. 12. ISBN 9780483463967.
  3. ^ Roth, Martha T. (1995). "Mesopotamian Legal Traditions and the Laws of Hammurabi". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 71 (1): 15–24.
  4. ^ a b Hammurabi (1903). Translated by Sommer, Otto. "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon". Records of the Past. Washington, DC: Records of the Past Exploration Society. 2 (3): 75–76. Retrieved June 20, 2021. 100. Anyone borrowing money shall ... a subsequent claim therefor.
  5. ^ a b Hammurabi (1904). "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon" (PDF). Liberty Fund. Translated by Harper, Robert Francis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 35. Retrieved June 20, 2021. §100. ...he shall write down ... god and go free.
  6. ^ a b c d Hammurabi (1910). "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon". Avalon Project. Translated by King, Leonard William. New Haven, CT: Yale Law School. Retrieved June 20, 2021.
  7. ^ Hammurabi (1903). Translated by Sommer, Otto. "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon". Records of the Past. Washington, DC: Records of the Past Exploration Society. 2 (3): 78. Retrieved June 20, 2021. 126. If anyone deprived of ... right so to do].
  8. ^ Hammurabi (1904). "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon" (PDF). Liberty Fund. Translated by Harper, Robert Francis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 43–45. Retrieved June 20, 2021. §126. If a man have ... he had made claim.
  9. ^ Hammurabi (1903). Translated by Sommer, Otto. "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon". Records of the Past. Washington, DC: Records of the Past Exploration Society. 2 (3): 85–86. Retrieved June 20, 2021. 235. If a shipbuilder builds ... was destroyed with it.
  10. ^ Hammurabi (1904). "Code of Hammurabi, King of Babylon" (PDF). Liberty Fund. Translated by Harper, Robert Francis (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 83–85. Retrieved June 20, 2021. §235. If a boatman build ... and whatever was lost.
  11. ^ "The Civil Law, Volume I, The Opinions of Julius Paulus, Book II". Translated by Scott, S.P. Central Trust Company. 1932. Retrieved June 16, 2021. TITLE VII. ON THE LEX RHODIA. It is provided by the Lex Rhodia that if merchandise is thrown overboard for the purpose of lightening a ship, the loss is made good by the assessment of all which is made for the benefit of all.
  12. ^ a b The Documentary History of Insurance, 1000 B.C.–1875 A.D. Newark, NJ: Prudential Press. 1915. pp. 5–6. Retrieved June 15, 2021.
  13. ^ "Duhaime's Timetable of World Legal History". Duhaime's Law Dictionary. Retrieved April 9, 2016.
  14. ^ "Così nel 1853 nacque a Camogli la prima assicurazione marittima / LA STORIA". (in Italian). 2017-11-18. Retrieved 2020-11-04.
  15. ^ Franklin, James (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability Before Pascal. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 273-278. ISBN 0-8018-6569-7.
  16. ^ Palmer, Sarah (October 2007). "Lloyd, Edward (c.1648–1713)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/16829. Archived from the original on 15 July 2011. Retrieved 16 February 2011. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
  17. ^ Gürses, Özlem (2015). [9781315855950 Marine Insurance Law] (1 ed.). New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-92924-6. ((cite book)): Check |url= value (help)
  18. ^ Smithq, D.A. (1989). "Marine Insurance - Constructive Total Loss". New Zealand Maritime Law Journal. 6: 47.
  19. ^ Stille, Mark (2016). U.S. Navy Ships vs. Kamikazes: 1944-45. Oxford: Osprey. pp. 68–70. ISBN 978-1-4728-1273-5.
  20. ^ Hartford, The (May 2016). "Ocean Marine Insurance". The Hartford Ocean Marine Insurance. The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. Retrieved 16 May 2016.
  21. ^ Nwafor, Ndubuisi. A; Walker, Tony R. (1 October 2020). "Rethinking marine insurance and plastic pollution: food for thought". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 161: 104950. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104950. S2CID 219748078.
  22. ^ see also: Bank of Nova Scotia v. Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd. ("The Good Luck") [1991] 2 WLR 1279 and at 1294-5

Further reading