BREACHES OF WARRANTY

Since 2016, the old ‘basis of the contract’ clauses have been abolished. This means that underwriters cannot automatically avoid all liability if an express warranty is breached.

The underwriter is liable for losses that occurred before a breach of warranty – as was always the case. But now, if the breach can be remedied, the underwriter remains liable for losses that happen after the breach has been fixed. If a loss occurs while the insured is in breach of a warranty, and if (crucially) the breach actually increased the risk of the actual loss, underwriters can still deny liability. Once (if) the insured rectifies the breach before the loss happens, the insured will again be back on-cover. After a breach of a warranty, the insured is still responsible for paying the premium. However, underwriters may be cautious when demanding payment to avoid waiving their right to rely on the breach.

If the breach cannot be rectified, such as a breach of warranty regarding past facts (e.g., previous insurance claims or losses), the liability of the underwriter remains permanently suspended, and the insured will not have had any cover.

RECOGNISING WARRANTIES

So, with such serious consequences flowing from a breach of warranty, it is vital to be able to identify what warranties apply to a policy. The trouble is that warranties can be expressed in the contract, but not actually described as a warranty. More worryingly, they can be implied automatically by law, without even having to be agreed upon. Thankfully, express warranties must at least be included in the policy, or must at least be contained in some document referred to in the policy. So in the event of a claim it wouldn’t be good enough for an underwriter to simply dust-off some previously unknown ‘standard’ terms and refuse to pay. They are normally added as a deliberate and obvious fundamental stipulation of the contract.

While implied warranties cannot be found in policies, they are easy to ascertain from the UK’s Marine Insurance Act 1906, and we’ll consider the more important ones below. While it may seem narrow-minded just to look at English law, it’s worth considering that most of the world’s risks are insured on the London market, and most countries model their own insurance laws on this Act – sometimes word for word. Whereas express warranties tend to be specific, implied warranties can be overarching and vague; so there can be overlaps between them. But an express warranty will not exclude an implied warranty on a related matter, unless directly inconsistent with it.

EXPRESS WARRANTIES

The two most widely used policy forms, the Institute Yacht Clauses and the American Yacht Form, contain warranties that the yacht is only to be used for ‘private pleasure purposes’ and is not to be chartered unless the underwriters specifically agree. The Institute Yacht Clauses also frame agreed navigation limits and the vessel’s maximum speed as warranties. Other popular forms often demand that when the yacht is underway a competent person must be on board and in control of the vessel.

In a 2006 English case, concerning a claim following a serious fire on board the motor yacht Newfoundland Explorer while she was laid up afloat in Fort Lauderdale, the court held that the phrase ‘warranted vessel fully crewed at all times’ meant that the owner had to keep at least one crew member on board the yacht 24 hours a day, subject to (i) emergencies rendering crew departure necessary, or (ii) necessary temporary departures for the purposes of performing crewing duties or related activities such as adjusting mooring lines. It wasn’t good enough to employ a captain who lived ashore 30 minutes away. History was repeated in 2008 with a fire on board another vessel, Resolute, whose crew lived nearby – and the court in that case came to the same conclusion.

WARRANTY OF LEGALITY

Arguably the most important warranty is not expressed, but implied. Under the UK’s Marine Insurance Act 1906 (and in the laws of many other nations) there is an implied warranty that:

• The ‘adventure’ (i.e. a charter or a period of use by the owner and/or crew) will be lawful; and

• The yacht will be used in a lawful manner – as far as the insured can control the matter.

With regard to legality of the adventure, at one end of the spectrum a yacht will clearly not be covered where the owner uses it for smuggling. Problems arise where the owner has no knowledge of doing anything illegal. Illegality may stem from local law as well as the yacht’s flag state law: a yacht chartering in without a local charter licence may not be covered. One would also want to ensure that the complex US security regulations are complied with when entering their waters.

As for the second part – using the yacht in a lawful manner – this is only an issue as far the owner can control it. Compliance with safety-related regulations, such as the International Safety Management (ISM) Code or the Red Ensign Group Yacht Code Large Yacht will be a prerequisite to the underwriter paying related claims.

So important is the warranty of legality that breaches of it cannot be waived by a kind underwriter, neither can the parties agree to overlook it. The warranty of legality has been used to avoid payment even where the crew failed to keep a proper watch – as this was in itself a breach of international collision regulations. In one landmark case, a yard was also denied cover where fire destroyed yachts in the yard, but where the yard itself did not conform to municipal byelaws.

SEAWORTHINESS

As surprising as it may seem, where a policy is for a period of time (as nearly all are) rather than for a specific passage, there is no implicit requirement in law for your yacht to be maintained in a seaworthy state. While some policies overcome this by expressly obliging the owner to maintain the yacht in a seaworthy condition, some standard forms don’t.

Where there’s no stated obligation to do so, the underwriter will not be liable for any losses arising from unseaworthiness if the yacht actually puts to sea in that state with the knowledge of the insured. Where, as is normally the case, the legal owner (and therefore the named insured) is an offshore company, perhaps held in trust, identifying the individual(s) with such knowledge is difficult. The managers are an obvious starting point. Whilst it is for the underwriters to prove such knowledge, not for the insured to disprove, a review of the documents and correspondence held by the ISM Code ‘designated person’ could prove fatal to the chances of a pay-out. Being in a seaworthy condition means just that: falling short, but nevertheless making every effort, will not do.

Even if a policy does not insist on seaworthiness, this is likely to be examined by the underwriter in any event after a claim, as any material non-disclosure would still provide a separate route for invalidating the claim. Many flag states, in particular within the Red Ensign group, have technical Codes of Practice that apply specifically to large yachts and those which are chartered. These provide objective measures of unseaworthiness, but, whilst helpful, should not be considered as providing a complete description of what constitutes a seaworthy yacht.

SENSIBLE PRECAUTIONS

If you’re chartering your yacht out, underwriters may insist on the use of a charter agreement that has been specifically approved by them, or is in a standard industry format, such as that published by MYBA. Likewise, if you’re going to race your sailing yacht, you may net to provide advance notification. However you use your yacht, be sure to get written confirmation of the ongoing information needed by underwriters – and provide this clearly, verifiable and in good time.

It's also vital to check that your yacht is operating in accordance with flag and port state laws, and that you have the paperwork to provide this. Check, also, that your crew have the qualifications they claim they have: there are various third parties which provide this standalone service.