Co-assurance on the owner's insurances
- Date: 02/08/2009
No manager should accept any argument from the owner or their insurers not to be a full co-assured on the owner’s P&I cover. We do come across examples where the manager is not a full joint member but it is very rare. However, we do see more examples of where the hull underwriter does not want to name the technical ship manager as a joint-assured on the owner’s hull policy. There is only one reason why they want to do this - they want to bring a claim in subrogation against the manager for any claim that they pay out to the owner for damage to the vessel or its equipment.
When a ship was managed in-house and not managed by a third party, the hull underwriter could not sue the technical department if he paid out to the owner for damage to, for example, a generator. Therefore, why should that same hull underwriter have the opportunity to bring a claim in subrogation against the technical manager just because the owner elects to use a third party ship manager? If either the owner or their hull underwriter is refusing to name you on their insurance policy, they are not doing it for any other reason than opportunism on their part. In those circumstances, we would refer you to ITIC’s cover wording which makes it a condition of your insurance that you be named on the P&I and hull insurances of the owners. Failure to do so may prejudice your cover with ITIC.
Everyone makes mistakes...
Could your business deal with a claim for negligence?